R.C.C. NO. 90

Tuesday, September 23,
1986

OPENING OF SESSION

At 10:02 a.m., the President, the
Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, opened the session.

THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to
order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM

THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise
to sing the National Anthem.

Everybody rose to sing the National
Anthem.

THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please
remain standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable Efrain B.
Treñas.

Everybody remained standing for the
Prayer.

PRAYER

MR. TREÑAS: Almighty God, we are about to
finish waiting the Constitution. We are about to end a significant
milestone in the history of our people in their quest for a Constitution
truly reflective of their ideals and aspirations. To be sure, we have
exerted our utmost efforts to hear the voices of the people. And as many
as these voices are, many are also the views and ideas expressed by
them. In the same manner, the thoughts and perspectives of the
Commissioners differ from one another. These differences are perceptible
in issues of tremendous impact on our people. But while disagreement is
inevitable, we know very well that we are united in one supreme goal,
and this goal, to express it quite simply, is to promote and protect the
common good.

We submit to Your divine will. We
surrender to Your divine wisdom. Therefore, as we are about to reach our
final destination, we humbly pray that You give us the wisdom and the
vision to see what else we need to include in the new Constitution, and
to omit whatever is unnecessary and should not be included therein. So
that after we shall have left these august halls — these halls which
hear our speeches and debates, these halls which feel our dreams and
hopes — we will be reassured and re strengthened in the knowledge that
we have given to our people the best Constitution possible.

Finally, I wish to thank You for
returning to me health and vigor so that I may continue the task You
have assigned to me.

This we pray through Your Son. Jesus
Christ. Amen.

THE PRESIDENT: We wish to acknowledge the
presence of students from St. Paul College and the Pamantasan ng
Lungsod ng Maynila.

ROLL CALL

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will
please call the roll.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading.

Abubakar	Present*	Natividad	Present*
Alonto	Present*	Nieva	Present
Aquino	Present*	Nolledo	Present*
Azcuna	Present	Ople	Present*
Bacani	Present	Padilla	Present
Bengzon	Present	Quesada	Present
Bennagen	Present	Rama	Present
Bernas	Present	Regalado	Absent
Rosario Braid	Present	Reyes de los	Present*
Calderon	Present	Rigos	Present
Castro de	Present	Rodrigo	Present
Colayco	Present	Romulo	Present
Concepcion	Present	Rosales	Absent
Davide	Present*	Sarmiento	Present
Foz	Present	Suarez	Present
Garcia	Present*	Sumulong	Present
Gascon	Present*	Tadeo	Present*
Guingona	Present	Tan	Present
Jamir	Present	Tingson	Present
Laurel	Absent	Treñas	Present
Lerum	Present	Uka	Present
Maambong	Present	Villacorta	Present
Monsod	Present	Villegas	Present

The president is present.

The roll call shows 31 Members responded
to the call.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the
presence of a quorum.

MR. RAMA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is
recognized.

MR. RAMA: I move that we dispense with
the reading of the Journal of yesterday’s session.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we
approve the Journal of Yesterday’s session.

MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is
recognized.

MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, on page 20
of the Journal of yesterday’s session where we defined the rights of
women, may we ask that the proposal, as finally approved be indicated as
Section 11. On page 29, it says:

Thereafter, Section 11 was submitted to a
vote and with 28 Members voting in favor and none against, the same was
approved by the Body.

I move that immediately before that
paragraph, we insert the proposal which was approved as follows:
“SECTION 11. THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN NATION-BUILDING
AND SHALL ENSURE THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW OF WOMEN AND
MEN.”

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. Let the
corresponding insertion be made.

The Chair would like also to call the
attention of the Members to the second paragraph on page 29, which is a
reproduction of Section 11. We should erase “MEN AND,” so it would read:
“THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE ROLE OF WOMEN. . .”

Is there any further correction?

MR. ROMULO: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is
recognized.

MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may I just
manifest that my cosponsors for Section 11 are Commissioners Azcuna,
Padilla and Aquino.

APPROVAL OF JOURNAL

THE PRESIDENT: There being no further
observations, the Journal of yesterday’s session is hereby approved.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we
proceed to the Reference of Business.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The Secretary-General will read the
Reference of Business.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary-General read the
following Communications and Committee Report, the President making the
corresponding references:

COMMUNICATIONS

Letter from Maria Camilla R. Pascual of
13 Gen. R. Simon, Caloocan City, urging the Constitutional Commission to
pick up the best of what has been written since the 1935 Constitution,
to use the past as a reference not something to be cursed or discarded
and to use the future as the objective and goal, and then to move on
fast towards that goal.

(Communication No. 956 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Steering Committee.

Letter from Datu Melanio B. Limpuson,
submitting Resolution No. 04, series of 1986, adopted in a joint meeting
of the 1411 CHDF Battalion Officers and Staff and Subanons tribal and
religious leaders, earnestly requesting the division of Zamboanga into
three provinces.

(Communication No. 957 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on the Legislative.

Letter from Mr. Rolando M. Borlaza of
Magcaseville Elementary School, Santo Cristo, San Pablo City,
submitting, for consideration by the Constitutional Commission, an
article, entitled: “The Meaningful Symbol of Our Flag.”

(Communication No. 958 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Communication from Ms. Marie Kletke of
the Fil-Am Los Angeles Community, 904 N. Avalon Blvd., Wilmington, CA
90744, expressing hope that the draft Constitution will include
provisions fostering the development of self-sufficient economic regions
with economic and political autonomy.

(Communication No. 959 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on the National Economy
and Patrimony.

Communication from the Catholic
Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) signed by its
president, Mr. Rolando Dizon, expressing its view that the issue of the
U.S. bases should not be included in the Constitution but should be left
to the government to negotiate so as to protect the highest national
interest.

(Communication No. 960 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory, and Declaration of Principles.

(Communications seeking to include in the
Constitution provision a obliging the State to protect the life of the
unborn from the moment of conception, from:

1) Dr. Editha Lanete and 51 physicians
of UP-P.G.H., Manila

2) Mr. Ronald Masangkay and 95 other
students from De La Salle University.

3) Ms. Flora Nisce Kagaoan Ministry of
Health Regional Health Office No. 4 IPHO, Morong District Hospital
Morong, Rizal

4) Ms. Marie R. Banaag, 42 Bolivia St.,
Better Living Subdivision, Bicutan, Parañaque, M.M. and 565 other
concerned citizens.

(Communication Nos. 961, 962, 963 and 964
— Constitutional Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory, and Declaration of Principles.

Communications seeking to include in the
Constitution the following:

a) the promotion of Philippine
sovereignty over our natural resources,
b) an anti-U.S. or any foreign intervention on Philippine affairs,
c) a no-U.S. military bases agreement, and
d) an anti-nuclear power plant, from:

1) Glenn M. Bayon
Infant Jesus Academy
Silang, Cavite

2) Christmas Panganiban
Infant Jesus Academy
Silang, Cavite

3) William V. Panganiban
Infant Jesus Academy
Silang, Cavite

4) Oliver B. Castro
Infant Jesus Academy
Silang, Cavite

(Communication Nos. 965, 966, 967 and 968
— Constitutional Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory, and Declaration of Principles.

COMMITTEE REPORT

Committee Report No. 40 on Petition No.
3, prepared by the Steering Committee entitled:

AN URGENT PETITION TO REOPEN SECTIONS 5
AND 11 OF THE ARTICLE ON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER, recommending that the
same be given due course by the Commission.

Sponsored by Hon. Bengzon, Jr. and
Davide, Jr.

To the Calendar of Unassigned Business.

MR. RAMA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is
recognized.

CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 537
(Article on the Declaration of Principles)
Continuation

PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

MR. RAMA: I move that we resume
consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 537 on the Article on
Declaration of Principles. We are still in the period of amendments.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The honorable chairman and members of the
committee will kindly occupy the front table

At this juncture, the President
relinquished the Chair to the Honorable Cirilo A. Rigos.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask
that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer,
we are now in the section on science, technology and education. The
committee has decided to combine Sections 19 and 20 or Sections 18 and
19 now in the revised draft to become one provision. We also request the
transposition of the flagship provision in the already approved Article
on Education, Science, Technology, Arts and Culture to be the provision
for Section 19. Copies of the provision have just been distributed to
the body. It reads:

The State shall give priority to
education, science and technology, arts, culture and sports to foster
patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress and promote total
human liberation and development.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Are
there any comments?

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
committee is conscious of the fact that the Article on the Declaration
of Principles should not be encumbered with unnecessary details and that
we would like the body to help us write down here some strong, pungent
and brief statements. And this is the reason why we have decided to
combine Sections 18 and 19 in just one sentence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): This
is non the proposed; Section 18, is that right?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: It will be Section 18.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): This
will be Section 18.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
proposed Section 18 actually combines Sections 18 and 19.

MR. TINGSON: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Are
we ready to vote?

MR. RAMA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, the
body is ready to vote.

MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Padilla is recognized.

MR. PADILLA: Line 4 of the proposed
substitute section reads: “promote total human liberation and
development.” Can we not just simplify that by saying, “. . . promote
human developments”?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer,
this section is the exact wording of the already approved Article on
Education and we are just requesting a transposition of this to the
Article on the Declaration of Principles. Since this has been approved,
Mr. Presiding Officer, we request that this be accepted as it is.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
would like the chairman of the Committee on Human Resources to please
make some remarks on this. Our committee is proposing the transposition
of the whole Section 1 to this particular part of the Article on the
Declaration of Principles.

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
consulted the members of the Committee on Human Resources and they were
agreeable to transpose the omnibus section of the Article on Education
to the Article on the Declaration of Principles.

MR. TINGSON: Thank you.

Mr. Presiding Officer, if I remember
right, in our deliberations yesterday we decided to just go ahead and
write here what we want to write and then the Committees on Style and
Sponsorship would take care of that.

We will just go ahead; that is what
Commissioner Rosario Braid read a while ago. It says:

The State shall give priority to
education, science and technology, arts, culture and sports to foster
patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress and promote total
human liberation and development.

We are ready to vote on this.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move
that we vote on this consolidated formulation.

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion
is approved.

As many as are in favor of the
transposition, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)

The results show 20 votes in favor and 2
against the proposed Section 18 is approved.

MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, point
of order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Romulo is recognized.

MR. ROMULO: I would just like to clarify
the procedure being used for this transposition. There were two
approaches suggested yesterday: one was the Maambong approach and the
other one was the Azcuna approach. I cannot remember offhand what we
adopted. I just want it recorded that whichever procedure we adopted
yesterday should be the one followed now.

Can Commissioner Azcuna please comment?

MR. AZCUNA: Mr. Presiding Officer, what
we adopted yesterday was the procedure of merely reiterating the
flagship provision in another article without transferring it. However,
guidelines were given to the Sponsorship Committee to just delete later
on one of the duplications and retain the one that is in the Article on
the Declaration of Principles.

MR. ROMULO: So, Mr. Presiding Officer, I
move that the same procedure be used with regard to this section.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion
is approved.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. RAMA: May I ask that the chairman of
the committee be recognized, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Tingson is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: Regarding Section 21,
similarly, our committee telescoped this into a shorter sentence to
read: “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO COMMUNICATE AND TO HAVE ACCESS TO
INFORMATION SHALL ENJOY THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE.”

I think this particular section was based
mainly on the proposal of Commissioners Rosario Braid and Foz.

May I give the microphone now to
Commissioner Rosario Braid.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Mr.
Chairman, is that a committee amendment on page 5, Section 21?

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
turn the microphone over to Commissioner Rosario Braid. I think we have
a further change on that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, we have
incorporated the amendments of Commissioners Davide and others, copies
of which were distributed yesterday. It reads: “THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE
TO COMMUNICATE AND TO HAVE ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAT WILL ENHANCE
PARTICIPATION SHALL ENJOY THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE. THE COMMUNICATION
MEDIA HAVE A SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PROMOTE AND SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS
AND FREEDOMS OF THE PEOPLE.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

I wonder whether this provision is
already contained in Section 6 of our Bill of Rights, more particularly
the phrase “ACCESS TO INFORMATION.” Section 6 of our Bill of Rights, as
approved, states:

The right of the people to information
on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as government research data used as
basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law.

Mr. Presiding Officer, my main objection
here is the addition of “ACCESS TO INFORMATION” without the qualifying
phrase “subject to limitations as provided by law.” Does this phrase
“ACCESS TO INFORMATION” refer also to intelligence information gathered
by the NICA — the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: There are limitations
of access which will be defined by law, and these are defined in the
Bill of Rights.

Mr. Presiding Officer, this provision
pertains to the need to complement the freedom to communicate with the
necessary resources. Resources here means information which will equip
people to act intelligently. The rights cannot be exercised unless
people have adequate information.

MR. DE CASTRO: So, in short, the
Commissioner means that when we speak of “ACCESS TO INFORMATION,” we do
not include intelligence information gathered by the police, the Armed
Forces and the NICA. Am I correct?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: These are exceptions,
Mr. Presiding Officer. These do not refer to the information in this
particular provision.

MR. DE CASTRO: How about information from
the private sector? Mr. Presiding Officer, if the private sector is
making such researches in consonance with their business, will the
information be available to everybody so that they can copy the same?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: There are provisions
in terms of intellectual rights that will protect those who have access
to technical information. However, there are certain information that
should be given to all.

MR. DE CASTRO: What is the need,
therefore, of Section 21 insofar as access to information is concerned,
when we have it categorically stated in Section 6 for our Bill of
Rights?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: There is information
that people need, such as information on fluctuating prices. The
entrepreneur would like to have access to information that will help him
select which industry he should invest in; the farmer needs adequate
information on agricultural inputs, the prospective employer needs
information that would enable him to decide whether or not he should be
recruited by the employment agency.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer,
this is going around the circle a lot. Section 6 of the Bill of Rights
is already very definite on access to information. Why do we need this
kind of provision in our Article on the Declaration of Principles? Our
Bill of Rights will be in a much better position.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Does
Commissioner de Castro have any amendment?

MR. DE CASTRO: I move to delete this
section, Mr. Presiding Officer, for the very reason that the same is
well defined in Section 6 of our Bill of Rights. The proponent accepted
that “ACCESS TO INFORMATION does not include the intelligence
information of the Armed Forces, the police and the NICA, which is
really dangerous for State security without any qualification in this
provision as saying subject to conditions provided for by law which is
well specified in Section 6 of our Bill of Rights.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes.

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): What
does the committee say?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: These rights, Mr.
Presiding Officer, have been rights and demands of the many developing
countries particularly in a situation where most of the information
resources are concentrated in the center, where it is not spread
throughout the country so that there is very little information in the
peripheral areas. So we talk of “information rich” areas, such as the
urban areas and “information poor” areas which are in the poorer rural
areas.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Padilla is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: Just one question, Mr.
Presiding Officer. What information would be disseminated, for example?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Information for the
farmer, for the entrepreneur in small-scale industry, information for
the future laborer who goes to Saudi Arabia so that he would not be
exploited by recruiters. There is very little information that is
available to the people.

MR. DE CASTRO: Then let us specify it
because when we talk of “access to information,” it means the whole
gamut of information involving secret matters. That is why Section 6 so
specifically stated that it should be subjected to the provision of law.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Padilla is recognized.

MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer. If this information, according to Commissioner de Castro, would
include confidential information on NICA, for example, and other
matters affecting national security, there really should be no open
information. I would like to invite attention also that under the Penal
Code there are provisions on discovery and revelation of secrets; Art.
290. Discovering secrets through seizure or correspondence; Art. 291.
Revealing secrets with abuse of office; and Art. 292. Revelation of
industrial secrets. So, obviously there should be access to information
which is already covered by the Bill of Rights which should refer to
matters of public concern not private information that probably may have
been the result of research covered by patents or copyrights, et
cetera.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Tan is recognized.

SR. TAN: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would
agree with Commissioner de Castro that perhaps this should be deleted
because it is already in the Bill of Rights. But there is one dimension
which is not in the Bill of Rights and that is the last sentence. It
states: “The communication media have a social responsibility to PROMOTE
AND SAFEGUARD the rights and freedoms of the people.” Especially after
the revolution, many of us have been disillusioned by the communication
media because most of the time their information is inaccurate and
sensational. So I thought this was rather important if it has a place in
the Constitution and for me it is not only a social responsibility but a
moral responsibility.

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

The communication media are again well
defined and particularly stated. In fact they were so complete that we
have nothing more to add in the General Provisions. Does the proponent
now want to lift again transport, transpose or whatever we have that one
in the General Provisions to be placed in the Declaration of Principles
insofar as media are concerned?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer,
this particular provision is not mentioned at all in the General
Provisions. That is why we did not mention it there because we wanted it
in the Declaration of Principles. So, when we talk of social
responsibility as a concept, such is found only in the General
Provisions Article.

MR. DE CASTRO: I have the amended
provision on the General Provisions. I am a member of the committee. I
do not know whether my mind is escaping me now, but I very well remember
that we even spoke of communication media even on the equity
participation. I think it is about two or three sections. I may get it
when I have the paper. I hope that I am not correct in my statement
about the media.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Is
Commissioner Monsod seeking to be recognized? Please proceed.

MR. MONSOD: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. I
just want to read the proposed section in the General Provisions. It
says:

The State recognizes the vital role of
communication and information in the economic, cultural, societal and
political development of the nation and in promoting peace and
international understanding.

I think that encompasses the sense of
what is now being discussed, and I would agree with Commissioner de
Castro and Commissioner Tan that we should delete this provision because
it is already covered in the General Provisions and in the Bill of
Rights. As a matter of fact, even on the National Economy, there is a
provision on information on loans, which states: “. . . shall be made
available to the public.” So, there are quite a number of provisions
that already deliver the same messages Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): So,
there is a motion to delete Section 21, page 5 of the committee draft.
Are we ready to vote?

MS. QUESADA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Quesada is recognized.

MS. QUESADA: May I ask Commissioners
Monsod, de Castro and Tan if they are amenable that instead of
transposing that provision found in the General Provisions, we now
replace what they are intending to delete.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: May I just read the
revised provision in the General Provisions which supersedes the one
read by Commissioner Monsod. It reads:

The State recognizes the vital role of
communication and information in national development. It shall promote a
comprehensive communication policy . . .

There is no mention about social
responsibility and promoting and safeguarding the rights and freedoms of
the people, which we thought would be a general declaration on
communication.

MR. DE CASTRO: Then include “SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY.”

MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. BENGZON: Point of order, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.

MR. BENGZON: Commissioner Rosario Braid
read a report, a revised report, which has not been distributed. We have
here in our possession, which was read by Commissioner Monsod, Proposed
Resolution No. 531 which deals on Committee Report No. 31, and this is
already a substitute resolution. So, whatever Commissioner Rosario Braid
is reading is not official in the sense that it has not been properly
filed. We have not received the copy.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, it is already the
official report. May we request the Secretariat to furnish copies.

MR. BENGZON: This is very important, Mr.
Presiding Officer, because General Provisions is next on deck. After the
Declaration of Principles and Family Rights, it is the General
Provisions Article that will be considered by this body. And what
everyone has is Proposed Resolution No. 531 which is a substitute
resolution already.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Does
the committee need to confer?

MS. NIEVA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there
must be some error, because I have substitute Resolution No. 531 which
contains the provision that Commissioner Rosario Braid has read. I have
Section 9 as she read it.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: It is as of September
1, 1986. We amended it because there were still proposals that came in
through the mails which the committee considered because they were very
important.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
session is suspended for two minutes.

It was 10:39 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:43 a.m., the session was
resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
session is resumed.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
committee is asking Commissioner Monsod to articulate the new
formulation with the approval of the committee.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: If, Mr. Presiding Officer, I
believe the contention, the issue is that there is a thought in that
sentence which is the social responsibility of media that is not in the
Bill of Rights, not in the General Provisions, nor in the Article on the
National Economy. If the committee wants to retain that thought, which
is not in the Bill of Rights, I am going to suggest that we look into
this kind of formulation: “The State HAS THE DUTY AND MEDIA THE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPECT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ACCURATE AND
TRUTHFUL INFORMATION.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): There
is a motion to delete. How does Commissioner de Castro react to that?
Is that, in effect, an amendment?

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
request that we put to a vote my motion to delete Section 21, as
proposed, because it is already contained in the Bill of Rights, Section
6, and in the General Provisions which is being proposed.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: I am willing that the body
vote first on the motion for deletion and then the body may want to
consider this proposal.

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): As
many as are in favor of the motion to delete, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)

The results show 17 votes in favor, 10
against and no abstention; the motion to delete is approved.

Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: I would like to propose this
provision: “The State HAS THE DUTY AND MEDIA THE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
TO RESPECT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ACCURATE AND TRUTHFUL
INFORMATION.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Bernas is recognized.

FR. BERNAS: Just one question. We are
imposing a duty on the State to respect the right of the people. How can
this be implemented in concrete?

MR. MONSOD: One concrete thing that comes
to my mind is that the government should never again indulge in the
kind of propaganda and management of the news that happened during the
Marcos regime.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.

FR. BERNAS: Would we not, in effect, be
trenching on freedom of expression? I think everyone has a right to make
a fool of himself.

MR. MONSOD: I think if the right is
there, we are just stating the corresponding duty of the government.

FR. BERNAS: We are putting the duty on
the State to respect the right of the people to accurate information. It
would seem to me that this can be implemented only by some form of
curtailment of the freedom of speech or the press.

MR. MONSOD: I beg the Gentleman’s pardon?
I am sorry.

FR. BERNAS: This can be implemented only
by some form of curtailment of speech and press. In effect, we would be
weakening the guarantee of freedom of the press.

MR. MONSOD: Actually, Mr. Presiding
Officer, it does not need an act of the government. What it can mean is
that the government will refrain from managed news and manipulation of
media.

FR. BERNAS: But the government also has
the right to project its own ideas. One side, we would call it
management; another side. we would call it debate.

MR. MONSOD: Yes. But I think there is a
difference, Mr. Presiding Officer, because we were spectators to
manipulation of statistics, to manipulation of news and this would just
affirm that the government may, of course, disseminate accurate and
truthful information, that what it cannot do and should not do is
manipulate the news.

FR. BERNAS: But in my view of freedom of
expression, whatever manipulation of information there is should be
answered not by curtailment of this exercise but rather by exposure of
the manipulation.

MR. MONSOD: I agree with the Gentleman. I
do not think there is any difference. I am just saying that this
provision talks about two things: that the government should not
deliberately go out and change the news and should, therefore, respect
the right of the citizens to accurate and truthful information and the
idea of the social responsibility of media.

FR. BERNAS: And supposing government
does?

MR. MONSOD: Does what?

FR. BERNAS: Does what was described as
manipulation. What possible remedy would there be against the
government?

MR. MONSOD: We, might as well ask the
same question on the Bill of Rights. Suppose the government does not
observe the rights of the people in the Bill of Rights?

FR. BERNAS: If there is a violation of
the Bill of Rights by the government, then whatever the government does
is invalid. In this particular case, it is not a question of validity or
invalidity but a question of muzzling government.

MR. MONSOD: I do not think it is muzzling
government.

FR. BERNAS: My only concern is that any
attempt to implement this would have the tendency of muzzling. And I
think it could affect freedom of the press.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The concept of social
responsibility implies that the government should take steps also in
furthering and improving the welfare of media people and other
communicators who have often been left out actually. They are left out
to fend for themselves. I think that if we have to exercise social
responsibility, the State should provide encouragement of professional
development and incentives in terms of development programs, such as a
local program fund that would improve the capability and the credibility
of communicators.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Does
the committee accept the proposal of Commissioner Monsod?

MS. QUESADA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No. The committee will
accept it if Commissioner Monsod is open to one amendment. And here we
are referring not only to accurate and correct information but also to
adequate information. We can give accurate and correct information to a
limited few, but how about the millions of people who are left out
because there is lack of information? So, we would also like to include
the word “ADEQUATE.”

MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: I just want to state that I
think the word “ADEQUATE” is subsumed in “ACCURATE” and “TRUTHFUL”
because a half truth is not truth. But I think there is a more important
issue which was raised by Commissioner Bernas which is: Does this
section open the door to press censorship? I think that is really a more
important issue. My idea is that it does not open the door, but I think
that there is a legitimate concern of some Commissioners that we might
open the door to press censorship. So that is the issue.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Quesada is recognized.

MS. QUESADA: In that case, Mr. Presiding
Officer, would it be all right if we remove the words “THE STATE HAS THE
DUTY” and instead start with “COMMUNICATION MEDIA HAS THE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPECT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO TRUTHFUL AND
ACCURATE INFORMATION”?

MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
comment on that?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Romulo is recognized.

MR. ROMULO: Yes. I share the misgivings
of Commissioner Bernas on the reformulation. As soon as we impose some
kind of a duty or obligation on the press to follow a certain line, no
matter how noble and desirable that line may be, we are opening the
doors for the State to come in and impose some kind of — I will not even
call it censorship — pressure on media to follow that line. That is the
danger.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.

MR. BENGZON: I was going to make a
statement, Mr. Presiding Officer, because in the reformulation suggested
by Commissioner Quesada, she took away that portion imposing that duty
on the State and just retained the provision which gives the right to
the people to truthful information. Is that correct?

MS. QUESADA: Yes.

MR. BENGZON: There is even no need for
that, Mr. Presiding Officer, because necessarily the citizens are
entitled, as a matter of right, to truthful information. And it goes
without saying that media have the obligation and the social
responsibility to give truthful information not only to the urban
centers but even to the people in the barrios. So, we do not need to put
anything of that sort in the Constitution any longer. It becomes a
surplusage.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Does
Commissioner Bengzon want to propose amendments?

MR. BENGZON: I would like to request
Commissioner Monsod to withdraw his amendment.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Before we do that,
could we have a little discussion on this because it seems as if, when
we talk of media, the thing that comes to the mind of everybody is urban
media — urban newspapers, urban television. But we are talking here
about communication media which could enable the people in rural areas
to develop their own capability, their own self-dignity and
self-reliance so that they can participate in nation-building. The
reason they are left out is that they do not have information — whether
correct or inaccurate — and this is what we are trying to provide here.
We are trying to show that social responsibility encompasses not only
the responsibility to provide accurate and correct information to our
own colleagues and people living in urban centers where there is a
proliferation of media but also to open the opportunity to people in the
rural areas. Mr. Presiding Officer, in Digos, Davao, until only a year
ago, they did not have any radio station. The Muslim communities, even
if they have been granted autonomy, are deprived of adequate
information. If they do have, most of these programs are produced for
the Christian sectors. In other words, social responsibility means not
merely adequate or accurate information but also includes meeting the
need of diverse cultural communities of our society by providing them
enough information for them to develop self-reliance.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: I just wanted to say that the
premise of my proposal is that this is not adequately covered in the
Bill of Rights. Now, the first sentence of Section 6 in the Bill of
Rights states: “The right of the people to information on matters of
public concern shall be recognized.” If this body and the committee
confirm that within this sentence is included the social responsibility
as well of media to recognize that right to information of the people,
then I am willing to withdraw my proposal.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Rama is recognized.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
reminded that there are many constitutionalists, including myself —
although I do not consider myself an expert on constitutional law — that
consider this freedom of the press as the centerpiece of our Bill of
Rights. And the reason is that without information, without freedom of
the press, there cannot exist a democracy; and the basis for progress,
et cetera, is this freedom of expression of the press. To consider this
as an important right, there must not be any qualification or any
modification which would create an aberration on this right, because if
one contends that this freedom must be the freedom to tell the truth or
to serve a social function or whatever, then we, to a certain effect,
abridge this freedom because there are many interpretations of what is
the truth and, sometimes of what is the national interest. As in the
case of President Marcos, he believed that the freedom of the press must
be circumscribed by the interest of the State; therefore he proposed
the notion of developmental journalism which created a kind of monster
journalism during the time of martial law.

Now, as to the concern that this freedom
of the press might be abused, there is such a thing as a counter balance
because if we have freedom of the press everybody is free to print in
newspapers and to say what he wants to say, then the other papers will
correct the untruth stated or abuses made by another paper. In other
words, the interplay of the freedom of the press would have its own kind
of control and self-discipline. But what is dangerous is to write into
the Constitution some kind of objectives, regulations or conditions of
this freedom of the press. That is why in the Constitution of the United
States the wordings are very simple: “No law abridging the freedom of
the press shall be passed.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Do we
understand that Commissioner Monsod has withdrawn his proposal?

MR. MONSOD: Provided that the social
responsibility of the media is deemed included in the first sentence of
Section 6 under the Bill of Rights. That would include the idea that
there is a social responsibility involved, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Has
it been withdrawn? What is the situation now?

MR. MONSOD: I wanted to ask the committee
whether their interpretation is that they consider the first sentence
of Section 6 of the Bill of Rights to include the idea of social
responsibility.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: It does not, Mr.
Presiding Officer, because it does not include the people’s right to
communicate. In other words, nothing in the Bill of Rights gives the
mandate to provide the adequate resources, the adequate facilities that
would enable equal access to communicate. It is just that freedom in the
abstract is really freedom for only a few.

FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Bernas is recognized.

FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, in our
tradition of liberty of the press and of expression in this country, we
have recognized only two kinds of unprotected speech. These are libel
and obscenity. These are the only two exceptions; these are the only two
forms of expression which we consider unprotected. Everything else,
even untruth, is protected by the press. And the reason for this is
precisely to allow a clash of ideas in order that the truth will appear.
So, if there is any statement of untruth, the remedy is not
prohibition; the remedy is exposure. If there is error, the remedy is
not prohibition; the remedy is debate, unlimited debate; and this
amendment, I think, dangerously trenches on freedom of debate. It is not
for us to say to the press, “You must exercise social responsibility,”
because who is to say to them what social responsibility is? This is the
very essence of democracy — that people really express themselves on
matters that are debatable, and it is not for the Constitution to say
what this kind of liberty is or to limit it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): There
is a pending motion of Commissioner Bengzon to delete the Monsod
proposal. Is that correct?

MR. MONSOD: It has not been approved, so
there is nothing to delete.

MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, my
motion is conditioned on Commissioner Monsod’s insisting on his
amendment, but if he withdraws his amendment, there is nothing to
delete.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Quesada is recognized.

MS. QUESADA: We just want to put on
record that the first sentence of the original proposal of Commissioner
Rosario Braid would probably have bearing with the nonformal kind of
communication when people have to have access to knowledge and
information that would enhance their social and political participation.
So, just for the record, in case this is deleted, we would like to put
that sense into the record that we are interested in people having
access to information that would enable them to become participants in
nation-building, and that there are nonformal forms of communication
education, one of which is media.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer,
this comment is addressed to Commissioner Rosario Braid. Is her concern
about the people’s right to communication in the rural areas not covered
by two sections we approved yesterday; one section referring to
“comprehensive rural development,” and the other section referring to
“the obligation of the State to promote a just and dynamic social
order”?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer,
it will be in the same way that rural development also includes health,
education, science and technology and all the other development of
delivery of social services. We wanted to accentuate here the importance
of communication. We are living in an information and communication
age. In my sponsorship speech in the General Provisions, I call
communication the nerve of government. Unless we have adequate
information flowing horizontally, vertically, bottom up, top down, we
will never have a nation. At the same time, the information that should
flow in should be the information that is accurate, adequate, that which
mobilizes the community, helps integrate, and not the information that
divides. This is why we are very concerned with the concept of social
responsibility. This is a statement that not only mandates the State or
the communicators but everybody to help build a socially responsible
environment which would be ever vigilant about the role of the media.
This would mean strengthening education, research, and other support
areas of communication so that we are able to develop a more
professional core of communicators and, above all, an alert, vigilant
citizenry that is aware of the role of and respect for communication in
society.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I must
admit that when I made this proposal, it had a very limited and modest
objective. And now, I am a little afraid if the interpretation of the
committee of my simple amendment includes all of those things that
Commissioner Rosario Braid has mentioned because that sounds like a
shotgun to me on just a short sentence. I wanted very much to limit it
to a very specific point on just a question that there is social
responsibility with respect to education, nonformal and so on, that is
already in the education section. So, if the purpose of this section is
the purpose that Commissioner Rosario Braid mentioned, I would like to
withdraw it because that is not the idea that I had in mind.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
proposal is withdrawn, Mr. Floor Leader.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
ask that we proceed to Section 22.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Section 22, on page 5.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, Mr. Presiding
Officer, we request a vote.

MR. RAMA: It can no longer apply because
the proposal has been withdrawn, so there is nothing to vote an for the
whole section has been deleted.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Let
us hear from Commissioner Davide.

MR. DAVIDE: I would like to find out if
Commissioner Rosario Braid has her own proposal as a substitute for this
section.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I was going to
maintain the last phrase which is: “THE COMMUNICATION MEDIA HAVE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROMOTE AND SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE
PEOPLE.” Rights here are economic rights and political rights.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
think it is still proper to take that up even if Commissioner Monsod had
withdrawn, although there was an earlier action of the Commission to
delete. A motion to delete or an amendment to delete will not preclude
another amendment to insert. That is very clear according to Section 50
of the Rules.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): We
shall ask the committee now to read its proposed formulation of Section
21, page 5.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer,
it reads: “THE COMMUNICATION MEDIA HAVE A SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO
PROMOTE AND SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE PEOPLE.” And may I
add, Mr. Presiding Officer, that the rights and freedoms here include
economic, social, cultural, political rights and freedoms.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Would
the Commissioner just please read the sentence she would like to appear
in Section 21?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: “THE COMMUNICATION
MEDIA HAVE A SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PROMOTE AND SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS
AND FREEDOMS OF THE PEOPLE.”

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: This is exactly what has
been deleted on my motion, exactly the same words without an “a” added
or without a comma (,) added. This was already deleted by the
Commission, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Bernas is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: I hope they can still
formulate something, “ay maglubid ng buhangin para mapalagay pa uli
ito.”

FR. BERNAS: I would like to say the same
thing, Mr. Presiding Officer, that this is precisely the idea that has
been deleted. And I would add that it is a very dangerous idea as far as
freedom of the press is concerned. How do we operationalize that? How
do we tell media how they should exercise their social responsibility
except by telling them what to do? And we are really going head on
against freedom of the press when we do that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Rama is recognized.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, in view
of the statement and the reminder that these are exactly the same words
that were deleted by a vote, may I ask the Presiding Officer to make a
formal ruling on the proposition that there is no more need to vote on
this because this particular sentence had been deleted in the motion of
Commissioner de Castro.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: It was deleted on the
proviso that we act on Commissioner Monsod’s proposal, but the committee
will be willing to amend this provision in order that we have a
declaration.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
session is suspended for a few minutes.

It was 11:11 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:23 a.m., the session was
resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
session is resumed.

MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner
Rosario Braid be recognized, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer,
we have an amended provision with the help of many Commissioners. And
it reads: “ALL CITIZENS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEEK, RECEIVE AND IMPART
INFORMATION FOR EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION IN NATION-BUILDING.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, since
this is the Declaration of Principles that we are talking about, may I
propose an amendment? The amendment would be in the beginning; insert
before “all” the following: “THE STATE SHALL ENHANCE THE RIGHT OF ALL
CITIZENS TO SEEK, IMPART. . .”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): What
does the committee say? How will it read now?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: “THE STATE SHALL
ENHANCE THE RIGHT OF ALL CITIZENS TO SEEK, RECEIVE AND IMPART
INFORMATION FOR EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION IN NATION-BUILDING.”

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask
that Commissioner Bernas be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Bernas is recognized.

FR. BERNAS: May I ask again how this
general principle will be operationalized or can be operationalized
except by some form of dictation by the State.

This again trenches on freedom of the
press. This will come back in the provision on the General Provisions.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. NOLLEDO: We leave it to Congress.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes. The Congress
shall, of course, come up with the mandate that will strengthen the
people’s rights to seek, receive and impart information. Those rights
would come in the form of widening of information resources, access to
information resources particularly in rural communities, strengthen
professional development programs for all kinds of media communicators
and encourage small media. We are not only talking about the mass media
here. We are also talking about small non-mass media, audio-visual media
and other information resources in the communities. And these are
information resources that people can use to enable them to have greater
participation in nation-building. The State here would perhaps
encourage incentives like tariffs in newsprint that will favor community
newspapers, provide exemptions for equipment for struggling radio
stations in Samar or Leyte and many other areas and provide scholarships
for rural journalists and community media workers. These are the kinds
of areas where the State can come in.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
add?

FR. BERNAS: There is just a plethora of
ideas there whose meaning I do not know. It either says nothing or it
says everything and as a law it is unwise.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.

MR. NOLLEDO: May I add, in behalf of the
committee, that Congress may perhaps require all government offices to
give periodic bulletins to the people as much as possible so that the
people will know what is going on in the government and give comments on
governmental activities, if they have, because, Mr. Presiding Officer,
the reason the government is not closer to the people is because of a
communication gap.

I think Commissioner Rosario Braid is
correct that this can be implemented by Congress.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Padilla is recognized.

MR. PADILLA: In addition to the correct
observations of Commissioner Bernas, I believe that this new proposal is
covered by the constitutional rights of free speech and free press and
this is the right of expression without previous restraint or fear of
subsequent punishment. And in one decision, In re Abostado and In
re Quirino, our Supreme Court said, and I quote:

The constitutional guarantee of freedom
of speech and press must be protected in its fullest extent, but
license or abuse of liberty of the press and of the citizen should not
be confused with liberty in the true sense.

And there have been many decisions
affirming and guaranteeing and protecting this constitutional right of
free speech and of the press, which is already provided in our Bill of
Rights. Of course, this right is not absolute, like every other
constitutional right. It may be limited by certain provisions of the
Penal Code that penalizes, as was mentioned, libel as against private
individual.

But there must be full protection to this
right of free speech and free press. If I be allowed, I shall quote
from Justice Holmes in the case of U .S. v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644:

Freedom of speech and of the press
which embraces, at the very least, the liberty to discuss publicly and
truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint and
without fear of subsequent punishment, deserves protection not only for
the thought that agrees with us but even more so for the thought that we
hate.

And so there is really no necessity for
this provision which may even impair the correct exercise of the right
of free speech and of the press.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Guingona is recognized.

MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

In addition to the objection raised by
Commissioner Bernas, I also expressed reservation during the recess
regarding the use of the word “information” which I consider to be too
broad. I suggested that perhaps this word should be qualified because
this would include, as mentioned during the interpellation, matters that
are classified data. It could include questions as to the source of
information of mediamen.

But I understand that the committee has
tried to formulate or improve the condition by saying “TO ENHANCE
PARTICIPATION.” I think that still is too broad and does not specify the
information that perhaps should be included. I think there is a danger
in giving the possibility of a broad interpretation or construction to
the word “INFORMATION” in this particular proposed provision.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Foz is recognized.

MR. GUINGONA: And may I add, Mr.
Presiding Officer, that with regard to the matter of the issuance of
government bulletins, I do not think there is a need of a constitutional
provision for this, even if these bulletins do not partake of the
nature of government propaganda.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Foz is recognized.

MR. FOZ: As formulated originally by the
committee, it really sounds like a provision that should belong to the
Bill of Rights. But as amended by Commissioner Davide, it becomes a sort
of a principle that should be adopted as part of the Declaration of
Principles.

I am surprised that there should be any
kind of Opposition at all to such a provision. At the very core of this
provision is the right of the people to be informed. And we know very
well that a citizen who is so well informed can better perform his
duties and Obligations. And there is no idea whatsoever, not even a hint
in this provision of what is feared by the other Commissioners, prior
censorship of media. As a matter of fact, there is even no mention of
media here. Of course, media are very much involved in this provision.

It is, of course, so ideal and so
beautiful to speak of the marketplace of ideas insofar as communication
media are concerned. But then we know very well that in the exercise of
the freedom of the press, media almost all the time falter. They fail;
there are so many failings in the exercise of this freedom because,
precisely, we have followed the American practice, the American concept
of freedom of the press. This freedom, we believe, belongs only to the
publishers, to the editors and the reporters. Whatever they do with it,
we say: ‘they are only subject to the laws of libel and obscenity,” and
they forget that they have a social responsibility, to which term so
many of us object.

I find it a source of wonder why we
should object at all to the need to stress the social responsibility of
every sector, even the media and communication industry.

Thank you.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.

MR. BENGZON: I share the statements and
the concerns of Commissioner Bernas, and in addition to that, I just
would like to state, Mr. Presiding Officer, before we vote, that if this
proposed section, recommended by the committee, is voted down, it will
not mean that this Commission will not protect the right of the people
to be informed. It will not mean that this Commission does not wish the
people — the common man in the barrio — to be informed of every piece of
information that he should know. It will not mean that Congress cannot
pass laws to insure this right, nor every agency of the government
prevented from issuing its bulletin to give information to its
employees, because all of these concepts are precisely enshrined in the
first sentence of Section 6 of the Bill of Rights.

I just want that clear on the record.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

Just one question: When we say: “all
citizens have the right to seek and receive information,” does this
include intelligence information?

MR. AZCUNA: No.

MR. DE CASTRO: Does this include police
intelligence? Does this include the secret plans of the AFP on defense
and security?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer,
we will say that the Congress shall come up with specific laws that
will define what this information is. This refers to information that
will enable effective participation of the public.

MR. DE CASTRO: There is nothing in her
proposition which states that it will be Congress which will determine.
That is why I ask: Does this include intelligence information?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No.

MR. DE CASTRO: Police intelligence.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, we said there are
exceptions, and they are defined in the Bill of Rights.

MR. DE CASTRO: So the Commissioner admits
now that this is included in the Bill of Rights.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, I am referring to
the exceptions in terms of the kind of information.

MR. DE CASTRO: Please answer “yes” or
“no” because I am asking a definite question.

MS. ROSARIO BRAND: I said no.

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: Before I can vote
intelligently on the question, may I be allowed some clarificatory
questions.

The first question is: Does this
proposal, as a declaration of principle, not infringe upon, impede,
obstruct or impair press freedom in any manner?

MR. AZCUNA: No, it does not.

MR. DAVIDE: But this speaks of the right
of the citizen, is that not correct?

MR. AZCUNA: Yes.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: That is right, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

MR. DAVIDE: Secondly, this particular
declaration of principle is not included, as a matter of fact, in
Section 6 of the Bill of Rights, because Section 6 refers to the right
of information and relates only to official documents, researches, acts
or decisions. It does not relate to information in general to the
public, is that correct also?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: That is right, Mr.
Presiding Officer. It is broader because it goes beyond what is known as
a public concern.

MR. DAVIDE: Yes. As a matter of fact,
without this particular declaration of principle, the meaning, the
import and the significance of Section 6 may even be minimized. In other
words, can it not be expanded to include to a certain extent the very
right sought to be enhanced in this Declaration of Principles?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

MR. DAVIDE: And, finally, would she agree
with me that in the matter of the implementation of this, the
government can easily do that by merely, for instance, requiring more
telephone connections to the barangays, and cheaper newsprints in order
that more newspapers can compete in the market?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, Mr. Presiding
Officer. These are essential social services that have been ignored.

MR. DAVIDE: And, perhaps, giving tax
exemptions to media people?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: That is right, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

MR. DAVIDE: So, thank you very much for
the information; I am in favor of this.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
issue has been belabored. I think it is the consensus of the members
that they would like to vote.

MR. GUINGONA: This is just for
clarification, Mr. Presiding Officer. During the interpellation, mention
was made that the proposed provision does not contain any reference to
the participation of Congress through the enactment of laws. But it
seems to me that there was an implied answer that Congress could
intervene through the provision of law. I have expressed my reservation
regarding the participation of the government, either the executive or
legislative or even the courts, in this matter of dissemination of
information, because there is the danger that it might infringe on the
freedom of the press and of speech that we have enshrined in our Bill of
Rights.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer,
may I just respond? Where the government comes in will be through tax
exemptions or lower tariffs — particularly for newsprint, in the
providing of rural telephones, in the providing of scholarships for
those who work with information dissemination in the rural areas. This
is the area where the government could come in and not to interfere or
to censor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

In spite of the impatience of the Floor
Leader, which is very well founded, I would like to invoke my own right
to know about the intentions of the proponents. It seems that this
proposed section consists of two parts: one is the right of the people
to know what their government is doing or intending to do. And I think
that is a very valid concern.

The second part, however, in the phrase
of Commissioner Foz, calls upon the press to exercise social
responsibility, for it to submit to standards of accountability, like
all the other sectors. Is that correct?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer,
yes. This is the intent; it has been watered down in the amendment

MR. OPLE: It is the latter part which
causes some concern for me and, apparently, other Commissioners because
when social responsibility by the press and by media is stipulated here,
they are, of course, not exempt from accountability.

But I think the question of Commissioner
Bernas is very important. In exercising the social responsibility of the
press, should Congress have a hand in establishing the standards of
social responsibility and accountability?

For example, press freedom is generally
defined in British jurisdiction. I said, “British jurisdiction,” because
this includes not only the United Kingdom, but also former colonies of
Great Britain, such as Malaysia and Singapore. Press freedom is defined
as the freedom from licensing by the government. However, in Malaysia
and Singapore, we know that the press is licensed. One cannot publish
without a government permit.

And in our country, fortunately, anybody
can publish without registering even with the government, except as a
business in which capacity, a newspaper company ought to register only
with the SEC or with, let us say, the Bureau of Domestic Trade. But the
minute it is required to register with a government institution, like
the Office of Media Affairs — and this happened during martial law so
that even textile companies with printing facilities for fabric were
required by the Media Advisory Council at that time headed by Primitivo
Mijares to register with the Office of Media Affairs — I would like to
know whether in saying that Congress will take care of this and that, it
will be authorized under this section to prescribe registration without
which they may not be able to impose the social responsibility of the
press and media.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer,
although we struck out the words “social responsibility,” the fact that
we ask the State to enhance the rights of the citizens to receive
information also places the onus of responsibility upon it to come up
with some guidelines that will promote a more socially responsible
media.

MR. OPLE: There will be legal guidelines
for the press and media, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, more of positive
sanctions, if we may call it, not in terms of censorship but encouraging
the improvement of professional development for all types of
communicators through training and incentives. We hope that they would
be like lawyers or doctors and other professionals.

MR. OPLE: So that journalists would be
held accountable professionally by the Professional Regulation
Commission, Mr. Presiding Officer? So that Commissioner Foz would have
to prove to a regulatory body like the Professional Regulation
Commission that he is capable and qualified to practice his profession
as a journalist?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: We hope that Congress,
in the long run, will move to that professionalization of media
communicators.

MR. OPLE: I am sorry to disagree, Mr.
Presiding Officer. I think this will be a restraint on the freedom of
the press and especially the freedom of newspapermen to do their duty.
However, I am wholeheartedly in support of the first part of this
section which establishes the people’s right to know, but that should
probably be the object of another effort.

Thank you.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move
that we vote on the proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion
is approved.

Let us ask the committee to read the
amendment again.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: We have deleted the
second part, so it now reads: “The State shall ENHANCE THE RIGHT OF ALL
CITIZENS TO SEEK, RECEIVE AND IMPART INFORMATION FOR EFFECTIVE
PARTICIPATION IN NATION-BUILDING.”

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): As
many as are in favor of the amendment, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (One Member raised his hand.)

The results show 15 Members in favor, 17
against and one abstention; the amendment is lost.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Foz is recognized.

MR. FOZ: I wonder if at this precise
state, I can still explain why I voted for the provision.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): What
is the question again?

MR. FOZ: May I say something, Mr.
Presiding Officer, in connection with the proposal we have just voted
on?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
Commissioner may proceed.

MR. FOZ: I would like to oppose the view
or the proposal that journalists should submit themselves to a
regulatory board for examination and monitoring to determine their
professional qualification in the exercise of their profession.

With that clarification, just the same, I
voted for the provision.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): It is
so noted.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner
Tingson be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Tingson is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: With the deletion of Section
13 and Section 20, we are now on Section 19 on Page 5. That would now
be about the provisions on Local Government and we would like to ask
that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.

MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

As reformulated by the committee, Section
19, originally Section 22, will now read as follows:

The State shall guarantee and promote the
autonomy of local government units to ensure their fullest development
as self-reliant communities.

Mr. Presiding Officer, this is a
substantial reproduction of Section 10, Article II of the 1973
Constitution, and it will be noted from this provision that this is
merely an introductory or curtain provision to local government
provisions found in the new Constitution. There are two basic guidelines
indicated in the provision; namely, promotion of local autonomy and,
consequently, promotion of self-reliance in community development.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Alonto is recognized.

MR. ALONTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, will
the Gentleman of the committee yield to some questions?

MR. NOLLEDO: Willingly.

MR. ALONTO: In the text of the committee
report that I have in my hand, Section 22, which is now Section 19,
states:

The State shall guarantee and promote
the autonomy of local government units and autonomous regions to ensure
their fullest development as self-reliant communities.

I noticed in the statement of the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Local Governments, who is a
champion of the provision regarding autonomous regions, that he has
omitted the particular phrase “and autonomous regions.” May I know from
the Gentleman what the reason was for the committee’s decision to delete
that particular phrase?

MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner is right.
We deleted the term “and autonomous regions” for symmetrical purposes,
because when we talk of “autonomous regions,” the term itself indicates
“autonomy.” So we talk of the composition of the autonomous regions as
being given autonomy. I refer to the local government units composing
the autonomous regions. There will be no symmetry if we still state “and
autonomous regions” because the result will be some sort of redundancy.
When we talk of “autonomous regions,” which the Constitution authorizes
to be established, we already talk of autonomy. And so, when we make
this declaration, we talk of the autonomy of all local government units,
whether composing an autonomous region or not.

MR. ALONTO: Am I made to understand that
“autonomous regions,” which we have created in this Constitution is just
one form of local government units?

MR. NOLLEDO: No, I do not mean that. An
autonomous region consists of different local government units. And the
moment the autonomous region is established, the need for autonomy is
deemed realized.

MR. ALONTO: Thank you for the
Commissioner’s explanation, but then this particular section, which
talks about a concept of principles that is upheld by this Constitution
and eliminates the mention of the autonomous regions, would mean that
the State does not have any concern at all for guaranteeing and
promoting the autonomous regions in order to ensure their fullest
development as self-reliant communities. Does the Commissioner not
realize that?

MR. NOLLEDO: But we cannot deny that the
autonomous regions consist of local government units. And when we talk
of local government units, we also talk of those which compose the
autonomous regions.

MR. ALONTO: Yes, that is precisely why I
asked the Commissioner whether under his definition of local government
units the autonomous region is one form of a local government unit, and
he said no. That is why I returned the question to the Commissioner.

MR. NOLLEDO: If the Commissioner wants,
he can move for the reinstatement of the term “AND AUTONOMOUS REGIONS.” I
will have no objection to that, if the Commissioner feels it is really
necessary to put it there.

MR. ALONTO: Yes, in order to avoid any
doubt that this section refers to any local government units including
the autonomous regions, I think it is proper to return it.

MR. NOLLEDO: The committee accepts the
Commissioner’s amendment.

MR. ALONTO: Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Tingson is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: That was not an amendment,
but just an answer to Commissioner Alonto’s question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
would not necessarily object to the restoration of the words “AND
AUTONOMOUS REGIONS” because as mandated in the Article on Local
Governments and Autonomous Regions, an autonomous region is already
considered a local government unit.

So, may I propose the following as a
reformulation? Section 19 shall read as follows: “The State shall
guarantee the autonomy of local government units.”

We deleted the words “and promote” and
the phrase “to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant
communities” because these are already embodied in the Article on Local
Governments. So, a simple declaration of principle on this shall read:
“The State shall guarantee the autonomy of local government units.”

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Let
us first hear the committee’s response.

MR. NOLLEDO: We have no objection to
that, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
proposed amendment has been accepted by the committee.

Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: Section 2, which I believe is
a Padilla amendment, of the Article on Local Governments states: “The
territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.” Is
that not the same idea?

MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. The idea, however, is
not exactly reflected in the Declaration of Principles now found in
Section 19 of the committee report because here the State guarantees
that autonomy; in fact, promises to promote that autonomy. This is only a
curtain provision. I think local government units, which compose the
Republic, play a vital role in national development. We cannot delete
this provision without doing violence to that principle.

MR. MONSOD: I would like to first ask the
committee because I would like to move for the deletion of this section
since it is already amply covered.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
comment on that since I made the proposal?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: I reworded Section 19
precisely so that there will be no need to change the wording of Section
2 of the Article on Local Governments. I deliberately omitted the word
“promote.” We only guarantee as a matter of principle. We have the
specific provision in the Article on Local Governments to carry out the
intent of the Declaration of Principles guaranteeing local autonomy to
governmental units. So may I request Commissioner Monsod that instead of
transposing, we preserve this. Anyway, the wordings in Section 2 of the
Article on Local Governments are different and carry only in detail the
intent of the guarantee provided for in the Declaration of Principles.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, can we
just have a few minutes’ suspension?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
session is suspended for a few minutes.

It was 12:00 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 12:03 p.m., the session was
resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
session is resumed.

The chairman of the committee is
recognized.

MR. TINGSON: Commissioner Nolledo will
please be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.

MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

We have agreed on another reformulation
of Section 19 and it now reads as follows: “The State shall ENSURE the
autonomy of local GOVERNMENTS.”

I would like to emphasize, Mr. Presiding
Officer, that the term “local governments” should include the autonomous
regions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: I just want to clarify that
statement that the autonomous regions are deemed included in the
definition of “local government” wherever under this Constitution those
are set up. I just want to make sure that we are not going again into
federalism.

MR. NOLLEDO: I agree with the
Commissioner.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): It is
so recorded.

Commissioner Padilla is recognized.

MR. PADILLA: I heard the word “ensure”
instead of “guarantee.” Is that i-n-s-u-r-e or e-n-s-u-r-e?

MR. NOLLEDO: It is e-n-s-u-r-e.

MR. TINGSON: We are ready to vote, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): As
many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)

As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)

The results show 23 votes in favor; none
against and no abstention; Section 19 is approved.

The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
are now ready to proceed to Section 23 which is now Section 20.

MR. TINGSON: It pertains, Mr. Presiding
Officer, to prohibition of political dynasties. We would like to call on
Commissioner Nolledo again.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.

MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

It seems to me that the resolution asking
for a provision in the Constitution to prohibit political dynasties is
very popular outside but does not seem to enjoy the same popularity
inside the Constitutional Commission.

And so, Mr. Presiding Officer, I would
like to summarize the reasons behind this prohibition realizing what is
happening in different parts of our country. This provision will widen
political opportunities contrary to the opinion of Commissioner Monsod
because I feel that when we talk of equal political opportunities, we
have also to talk more or less of equal conditions under which
candidates run for public office. And with this provision, Mr. Presiding
Officer, we do away with political monopoly.

As now appearing in many parts of our
country, Mr. Presiding Officer, we seem to approve of the practice that
public office is inherited. Now, in order to make this provision more
palatable to the Members of the Constitutional Commission, I have
decided to restrict the meaning of political dynasty as a suggestion to
the forthcoming Congress of the Philippines. I believe, Mr. Presiding
Officer, that this prohibition, although using the term “prohibit,” is
not actually prohibitory but only regulatory. I am talking of this in
terms of the scope of the term “political dynasty” by saying that a
prohibition against political dynasty, Mr. Presiding Officer, is
designed to avoid circumvention of the provision limiting reelection of
public officers to give a chance to others in running for public office.
I would like to be specific, Mr. Presiding Officer. In the case of
local government officials like governors, for example, we allow them to
have two reelections. If he is reelected twice, he can no longer run
for reelection in which case, he will ask his close relative — a son or a
daughter or a brother or a sister — to run for public office under his
patronage. And in this case, we circumvent the rule against further
reelection because it may also happen that his younger son may run for
governor and he is still strong enough to exercise moral as well as
effective influence upon the son. And the son becomes a sub-altern,
subjecting himself to the will of the father who has apparently retired.

And so, in the case of a President, for
example, under the provisions of the Constitution, the President cannot
run for reelection. So if the incumbent President cannot run for
reelection, she can ask, for example, Noynoy Aquino — assuming that he
is already of age — to run for President, thereby negating the laudable
purpose for prohibiting reelection. That seems to me to be the meaning
of political dynasty although Congress may still widen the meaning of
the term. In the case of a governor, Mr. Presiding Officer, if he has
run for two reelections and he decides that a close relative run for
election for the same position, the governor, who is now incumbent, must
have built fortunes and even private armies to assure the perpetuation
through the election of close relatives. His built-in advantages over
his opponents will not widen political participation in an election, Mr.
Presiding Officer. So I submit to the Commission.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: This sounds like a replay of
the debate we had in the Article on Local Governments when we talked
about the same concept. This body voted down a similar proposal on
prohibition of political dynasties in the Article on Local Governments.
And here we are giving exactly the same reasons; we are indulging in the
same kind of debate on the same issue. Mr. Presiding Officer, as we
said before, the assumption here seems to be that we are underestimating
our people in their right to choose; we are trying to put a
prescreening mechanism so that public office is not after all accessible
to all because we are going to prohibit or exclude certain people from
running for public office. And my point is, we should have a little more
faith. Now that we have a new COMELEC, the process will be cleaned up,
but we should give our people full choice. Let them run and let the
people decide. That is the essence of suffrage.

MR. NOLLEDO: May I ask, Mr. Presiding
Officer, just one question of Commissioner Monsod?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
Commissioner may proceed.

MR. NOLLEDO: Suppose, as I stated in my
example, the incumbent governor has run for two reelections already, and
he wants his son to run to perpetuate the family in office, is that not
denying equal conditions to all candidates for the same public office?

MR. MONSOD: No, that is not. What he
should do is allow everybody who wants to run and trust the people to
make the right choice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer,
thank you.

May I ask a question of Commissioner
Nolledo?

MR. NOLLEDO: With pleasure.

MR. OPLE: Thank you.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Is
the Commissioner not yet through?

MR. MONSOD: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: I just want to make the
motion to delete Section 20, first, because it has been argued and
debated fully in the Article on Local Governments and this body has
already made a decision on the same point; and, secondly, for the
reasons I have stated, that I do not think we should curtail the right
of the people to a free choice on who their political leader should be.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
just comment?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.

MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to comment on
the assertion of Commissioner Monsod that this was already adequately
discussed. The issue, at that time, was whether to authorize the
Congress to include in the Local Government Code a provision against
political dynasty, and the issue here now is whether to put that as a
declaratory principle. (. . . deleted by order of the Chair.)

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

May I ask Commissioner Nolledo to tell
this body, if he cares, whether political dynasties are a cause or an
effect, considering a lopsided socioeconomic system especially in the
countryside where the advantage of birth favors those more likely to
fall in the category of dynasties as he calls them? The reason groups of
families rotate power only among themselves is that they are the only
ones with the means for sustaining political campaigns. Is that not
correct?

MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, the Commissioner is
correct.

MR. OPLE: In that sense, therefore,
so-called dynasties are the effects rather than the causes of an
imperfect social and economic system, especially in the countryside.

MR. NOLLEDO: That is a factor to be
considered.

In connection with that, if the
Commissioner will permit me, because of the economic situation we are
in, the moment the others who are young but perhaps more competent than
the candidate of the governor, of the incumbent, are discouraged from
running considering that they know of the built-in advantages of the
incumbent but they have no means to finance their political campaign,
you let the incumbent and his family perpetuate themselves in office.

MR. OPLE: If they are the effects rather
than the causes of prevailing and traditional social structures that
maldistribute opportunities, should this Commission not attack the
causes rather than the effects? And it is for that reason, I suppose,
that we have drafted an Article on Social Justice with a very
comprehensive land reform policy which we hope, if properly implemented
in the future, will recast the society itself in the countryside, so
that opportunities for running for elections will be better distributed.

MR. NOLLEDO: To my mind, recasting that
society in the manner the Commissioner expects will take a long time,
perhaps, 50 to 100 years; in the meantime we vote for elitist candidates
and the poor ones who are more competent, highly intelligent and
without the financial means are deprived of participation in the
democratic process.

MR. OPLE: Is it not also correct, Mr.
Presiding Officer, that notwithstanding these constraints of a lopsided
social and political system, there are, in fact, many people
disadvantaged from birth by the accident of being born to the poorest
families? Is it not a tribute to our political system and its upward
mobility that there are many people able to wrest public offices in
clean and free elections from so-called dynasties?

MR. NOLLEDO: In this case, would the
Commissioner agree with me?

MR. OPLE: In my own province there are no
longer any dynasties. There are other provinces where you find the word
“dynasty” probably misapplied to a distinguished family, let us say, to
the Cojuangco and Aquino family in Tarlac or the Padilla family in
Manila and Pangasinan, or the Rodrigo family in Bulacan, or the Laurel
family in Batangas, and the Sumulong-Cojuangco family in Rizal, the
Calderon family in Nueva Vizcaya, and Peps Bengzon has been calling my
attention to the existence now of a Bengzon line of political office
holders in Pangasinan. This is not to say, Mr. Presiding Officer, that
the Philippine society has been immobile. We see lots of evidences that,
in fact, people disadvantaged by the accident of birth have indeed
risen through their own efforts to become successful competitors of
entrenched political dynasties in their provinces and cities. I can
sympathize with Commissioner Nolledo’s concern about dynasties because
he comes from a province which tends to be governed by political
dynasties. Is that not right, Mr. Presiding Officer?

MR. NOLLEDO: I do not think so. The
Commissioner must be talking of Minister Mitra, and I think all the sons
of Minister Mitra are not interested in politics. I think that is the
misfortune of Minister Mitra.

MR. OPLE: Minister Mitra comes from a
distinguished political family, although the provenance might be
different in the case of his ancestors.

MR. NOLLEDO: But the venue is different.
The father comes from Batangas and was Congressman of Mountain Province.
In my case, I do not intend to build a political dynasty in Palawan,
even it opportunity beckons.

MR. OPLE: So, does the Commissioner agree
that this Constitution has already established numerous provisions that
will militate against the perpetuation of dynasties because these
provisions especially on social justice broaden economic and social
opportunities and, therefore, access to public offices, and that this
Constitution directly attacks the causes of the problem identified by
Commissioner Nolledo instead of addressing them as effects?

MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner will notice
that while we prohibit reelection, the person who is no longer
qualified to be reelected will let his son continue and perpetuate the
family in public office. That is what the proposal wants to remedy.

MR. OPLE: One more question, Mr.
Presiding Officer, before I exhaust my three minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
Commissioner still has one minute.

MR. OPLE: Thank you.

One final question: Does my friend,
Commissioner Nolledo, not believe that the right of suffrage should not
be abridged and that the right to vote and to be voted upon actually was
derived from the same concept of the right of suffrage? Will he agree
to that principle?

MR. NOLLEDO: We do not infringe upon the
right of suffrage. We only regulate the right of some people to run
because we want to equalize the conditions between the poor and the rich
candidates. And I would like the Commissioner to know that we do not
prohibit the son of the governor from running for the same office
because he can run later on when the governor-father is no longer in
office.

MR. OPLE: I thank the Commissioner for
recognizing the principle that the right to be voted upon inheres in the
right to vote. Thank you very much.

MR. NOLLEDO: I agree with the
Commissioner, but I think the State under its police power can regulate
the same.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Jamir is recognized.

MR. JAMIR: I am disturbed, Mr. Presiding
Officer, by the statement of Commissioner Nolledo that during the debate
on the Article on Local Governments that was referred to by
Commissioner Monsod (. . . deleted by order of the Chair).

MR. NOLLEDO: (. . . deleted by order
of the Chair.).

MR. JAMIR: But I think, Mr. Presiding
Officer, that it is dangerous to be talking of (. . . deleted by
order of the Chair).

MR. NOLLEDO: (. . . deleted by order
of the Chair.)

MR. JAMIR: But did the Commissioner (.
. . deleted by order of the Chair).

MR. NOLLEDO: (. . . deleted by order
of the Chair.)

MR. DAVIDE: Question of privilege, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): What
is the question of privilege of Commissioner Davide?

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF
COMMISSIONER DAVIDE

MR. DAVIDE: The privilege motion is to
strike off all statements regarding a quorum for the reason that they
would have no basis since nobody raised a quorum at the time that it was
said. And I would state for the record that at the time that the
so-called absence of a quorum took place, no less than the chairman of
the Committee on Local Governments presided and he would be estopped
from questioning the matter of quorum even right now. So, in order to
cleanse the record of any allusion regarding the integrity of the
Commission, I move for the striking off of all statements regarding this
issue on quorum.

MR. NOLLEDO: I have no objection to that
motion, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. BENGZON: I second the motion, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

MR. NOLLEDO: I have no objection to that,
but I am not questioning the presence of the quorum to invalidate the
proceeding. I am mentioning it to reenforce my argument that I think
more Commissioners should be given a chance to listen to my arguments in
favor of this resolution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion
is approved.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: Still on the matter of
quorum, Mr. Presiding Officer. I think to make it formal, Honorable
Nolledo should make a motion to delete all that he said about quorum so
that we can finally decide it; otherwise, the mere acceptance of the
suggestion of Honorable Davide is not sufficient. There must be a formal
motion by the Commissioner who raised the quorum in the first instance.

Thank you.

MR. DAVIDE: It was a formal motion, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): That
was a formal motion and there was no objection; it was approved.

Commissioner Guingona is recognized.

MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

I find the reason advanced by
Commissioner Nolledo regarding the need to equalize conditions and
elections valid. He is referring to an incumbent who can make use of the
facilities and the powers that he has while in office in order to
facilitate the election of a close relative.

Commissioner Nolledo, however, mentioned
that this particular provision seems to be popular outside but might not
be so popular in the Commission. Perhaps one of the reasons, Mr.
Presiding Officer, is that there is the use of the absolute word
“prohibit.” During the interpellations, Commissioner Nolledo admitted
that what he has in mind here is not prohibition really but regulation.
So maybe the word “prohibit” could be changed to the word “REGULATE.”
And since “political dynasties” is not the concept — political dynasties
are not explained in this provision — then perhaps we might add “AS
PROVIDED BY LAW” in order to make this provision more acceptable to the
Members of the Commission.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: I believe that there is a
pending motion to delete.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): There
is a pending motion to delete.

MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO: Before we vote on the
motion to delete, may I just be allowed to say a few words.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
Commissioner will please proceed.

MR. SARMIENTO: This seems to be a very
unpopular section. But may I speak in favor of this section in spite of
its unpopularity within this august body?

Political dynasties, Mr. Presiding
Officer, are the bane and waterloo of young, promising but poor
candidates. And this is true in the provinces, even in my own province.

By including this provision, we widen the
opportunities of competent, young and promising but poor candidates to
occupy important positions in the government. While it is true we have
government officials who have ascended to power despite accident of
birth, they are exceptions to the general rule. The economic standing of
these officials would show that they come from powerful clans with vast
economic fortunes.

So, I believe that with this provision
and considering that social and economic inequalities will be with us
for many years, maybe for decades, then there is wisdom for the
inclusion of this section in our Constitution.

MS. QUESADA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Quesada is recognized.

MS. QUESADA: Yes, I would just like to
contribute something to support the position of the committee to retain
this provision, which is about to be deleted. And one of the positions
that we maintain is, this is a facilitating provision that would enable
us to translate the principle that we had adopted concerning the
participation of the sectoral representatives so that they will have a
chance after three years of having reserved seats to compete in the
political party. If there are going to be political dynasties, then we
preclude, we limit the opportunities, the chances of the sectoral
representatives who have the position or the means by which they could
compete with political dynasties. I suppose that we all believe that
everybody should compete, but given the social inequalities, I do not
think that we will ever achieve that intention.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, may I just ask
one or two questions, Mr. Presiding Officer, of the proponent?

MR. NOLLEDO: Willingly.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Will this lead towards
the development of a pluralistic society?

MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Does this provision
encourage the development of a new political culture?

MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, because it really
widens political opportunities.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I had
assumed that the committee members had already talked with each other.
But, anyway, I just want to say that here we are in this assembly,
extolling people power and saying that the people have a new
consciousness and yet not trusting that they will make the right choice.
We want to put a section on political dynasty on the assumption that
there will be violations of the Electoral Code, that people in power
will use their office to elect their children. We cannot assume that
certain sections of this Constitution will be violated and then try to
cover and compensate for them in another section.

We have in this Constitution
qualifications of those who seek elective office. We are adding in this
section a disqualification to those who may aspire after public office,
and, in effect, amending the various provisions in this Constitution
which enumerate the qualifications and disqualifications of the law.

So, I move for the deletion of this
section.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): I
think we have debated this long enough.

MR. COLAYCO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Colayco is recognized.

MR. COLAYCO: I have one angle which has
not been mentioned and which makes the concept advanced by Commissioner
Nolledo very meritorious. One of the worst effects of political
dynasties is that it breeds graft and corruption. I will give one actual
example. In a city in Metropolitan Manila, the mayor has been in power
for easily 20 years even before Marcos came to power. He has several
children. What was the result? One took care of the graft coming from
the discos. Another one received a monthly pension from the so-called
motels. Another took charge of the gambling casinos. A fourth one took
care of the market collections. But the chief of police looked the other
way because he has been given a share in the loot. Because of the
length of time the mayor has held power, he did not bother with the
public criticism against his administration. This is something still
happening. A group of concerned citizens in this same city created a
special committee to help the present OIC. In the beginning they thought
that the OIC was acting in good faith, but lately, they heard that he
was following the footsteps of his predecessor.

This condition exists not only in this
city. We go a little farther to the Visayas. You know whom I am
referring to. This politician has such a strong private army that not
even our army dares to do something about it. And what is this political
dynasty doing? The same thing that the previous dynasty I mentioned is
doing. His wife and children are all in power. Some are mayors, others
are governors, et cetera. And in each place where they are in power,
graft and corruption is present.

MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): We
hope Commissioner Rodrigo will be the last speaker before we vote.

MR. RODRIGO: Yes. Before I vote
intelligently on this matter, I would like to ask a very important
question. What is the definition of a dynasty? What degree of
consanguinity or affinity is meant by dynasty? Does it refer only to
father and son? Does it refer to brother and brother? Or an uncle with
his nephew? Up to what degree?

MR. NOLLEDO: We are not deciding that
question here but we are recommending to Congress that the scope of
relationship shall be within the third degree of consanguinity or
affinity. We leave it to Congress to determine this relationship.

MR. RODRIGO: That means up to a nephew?
Is it by consanguinity or also by affinity?

MR. NOLLEDO: We are recommending
consanguinity and affinity but it is up to Congress to determine.

MR. RODRIGO: Is it the fault of a nephew
if he happens to have an uncle who is a public officer? Why penalize the
nephew? He cannot choose his uncle.

MR. NOLLEDO: To meet the Commissioner’s
objection, Congress may limit up to the second degree. We are not
deciding that relationship because Congress will conduct public hearings
on this before a regulatory law may be passed by it.

MR. RODRIGO: I do not see in the
provision that it is left to Congress to decide.

MR. NOLLEDO: That is why Commissioner
Guingona recommended, if this provision should not be deleted, “AS MAY
BE PROVIDED BY LAW.” The committee is receptive of that suggestion.

MR. RODRIGO: But in the Commissioner’s
thinking, may in-laws be included in the prohibition?

MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. The Commissioner knows
how family ties exist in the Philippines. Even fourth cousins are very
close to each other.

MR. RODRIGO: Yes. But then those are
exceptions. As a matter of fact, the general rule is that in-laws do not
get along well together.

MR. NOLLEDO: Perhaps in domestic affairs.

MR. RODRIGO: But the thing is a person
cannot choose the husband of his sister. Why should he be penalized for
something not his fault?

MR. NOLLEDO: As stated, it is Congress
that will determine the relationship.

MR. RODRIGO: Yes. But I would like to
visualize how Congress will act. What if Congress decides it will be up
to the third degree of consanguinity, meaning, uncle and nephew?

MR. NOLLEDO: Considering the close family
ties that exist in our country, not as an exceptional situation but as a
general rule, I would not blame Congress in providing for that effect.

MR. RODRIGO: Is it not unfair for a
nephew to be penalized, to be disqualified merely because he has an
uncle not of his choice.

MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner will notice
that I consider this not prohibitory but regulatory. We have to cut the
nexus after the permissible reelection. And when there are no more
built-in advantages like warlordism, graft and corruption, etc., then
that nephew can run again.

MR. RODRIGO: The argument was that the
incumbent has money and, therefore, he can help his nephew or brother or
son be elected. But there are many cases when, let us say, a municipal
mayor, even a provincial governor, is not a rich man.

MR. NOLLEDO: And after holding office for
two terms or more, he becomes very rich, and builds his own private
army. Mr. Presiding Officer, political dynasty is really a social
malady. And I disagree with Commissioner Monsod who says that the people
are against the provision. In fact, in practically all forums wherein I
appeared, the people overwhelmingly support the rule against political
dynasty.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos):
Commissioner Natividad is recognized.

MR. NATIVIDAD: With the Commissioners’
indulgence, the reason I voted against this provision before is its
vagueness. Are we speaking only of the position of the incumbent?
Suppose there is a public official and his relative is running for a
different position, are his relatives banned?

MR. NOLLEDO: That is the reason I said I
am limiting it only to a situation where the rule against further
reelection might be circumvented. That is my suggestion to Congress
although the Congress can also widen the meaning of political dynasty.

MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. That is why I was
afraid of injustice not to the incumbent but to the people. This country
is varied in experience. If one runs and it is clearly in furtherance
of a dynasty, I believe he will be defeated. That is my experience in my
own district. The easiest time that I ran and won handily was — we were
running under the opposition — when I was fighting against a dynasty.
It was an easy election. Let the people decide. The biggest issue that
we can raise against a political opponent is that he is running as a
part of a dynasty. Let the people decide; give this satisfaction to the
people. I am just voicing my own experience.

MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner’s
experience is an exceptional case.

MR. NATIVIDAD: When one is an incumbent,
it does not mean he is going to be politically strong; that is not true.
When one remains as a political incumbent, he has more issues against
him; he has more promises broken and he tends to be a little weaker. It
is not true that if one is an incumbent, he cannot be defeated. One is
more vulnerable as he gets to be elected several times. And then if one
puts up his son, for example, to run after him — as in Bulacan — that is
a formula for defeat. We have our own experiences in our own provinces;
we cannot generalize this matter. I have my own experience. There is
Senator “Soc” Rodrigo’s. When I was in the opposition, I ran against
someone who wanted his wife to be a Congresswoman, an incumbent
governor, and it was the easiest victory in my five terms.

So, let the people decide. For us to ban
or to declare this as unconstitutional is a different matter.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, in
view of this transcendental question, may I ask for nominal voting.

MS. QUESADA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

NOMINAL VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): I
think we are now ready to vote on the motion of Commissioner Monsod to
delete Section 20 on page 5.

MS. QUESADA: Before voting, Mr. Presiding
Officer, may I just inquire whether Congress would be preempted or
precluded from banning political dynasties should this provision be
deleted?

FIRST ROLL CALL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Not
necessarily, I suppose, but first let us dispose of this motion to
delete by nominal voting; the Secretary-General will call the roll.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Abubakar		Bernas
Alonto		Rosario Braid	No
Aquino		Calderon	Yes
Azcuna	No	Castro de	Yes
Bacani		Colayco	No
Bengzon	Yes	Concepcion	Yes
Bennagen		Davide

MR. DAVIDE: I abstain.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Foz		Padilla	Yes
Garcia	No	Quesada	No
Gascon	No	Rama
Guingona	No	Regalado
Jamir	Yes	Reyes de los	Yes
Laurel		Rigos	Yes
Lerum	Yes	Rodrigo	Yes
Maambong	Yes	Romulo
Monsod	Yes	Rosales
Natividad	Yes	Sarmiento	No
Nieva	No	Suarez	No
Nolledo	No	Sumulong
Ople	Yes	Tadeo	No
Tan	No	Uka
Tingson	No	Villacorta
Treñas	Yes	Villegas

SECOND ROLL CALL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not
registered their votes.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Abubakar		Laurel
Aquino		Rama
Bacani		Regalado
Bennagen		Uka
Bernas		Villacorta
Foz		Villegas

MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Foz is here
already.

MR. FOZ: My vote is no.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, are we
entitled to seek out our colleagues in the building?

MS. QUESADA: Mr. Presiding Officer, that
has been done before, when Commissioner Regalado was awakened from his
rest.

MR. MONSOD: He did not vote; he was not
allowed to vote.

MS. QUESADA: Yes, but he was brought
here.

MR. DE CASTRO: Commissioner Regalado was
not allowed to vote and the Members resisted his right to vote.

MS. QUESADA: Yes, but then he was called.

MR. NOLLEDO: That is a technicality. I
think that should not hamper the proceedings.

MS. QUESADA: He was called.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mag-usap lamang tayo ng
totoo rito; huwag tayong magsasabi ng hindi katotohanan. Bago tayo
magsalita, isipin muna natin kung katotohanan o hindi. That is truth in
our Preamble.

MR. NOLLEDO: The truth is that they voted
actually. It is only the place that seems to be questionable. I think
that seems to be a highly technical objection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
results show 17 votes in favor, 18 against and one abstention; the
proposed amendment by deletion is lost.

MR. MONSOD: I would like to reserve the
right to ask for a revote, because I think the way this was conducted
was not proper.

MR. SARMIENTO: May I object, Mr.
Presiding Officer, to the motion for revote. I think the voting was in
order.

MR. MONSOD: Under the Rules, only two
roll calls are allowed but what happened was that we had three, even
four calls.

MR. SARMIENTO: When Commissioner Foz and
the others voted, Mr. Presiding Officer, they were inside the session
hall; they were not outside.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, there
were three Members who were allowed to vote after the second call.

MR. DE CASTRO: That is right, Mr.
Presiding Officer. The vote was made by three Members after the second
call.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Is
there any motion to reconsider the voting?

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move
that we reconsider the voting and that we go into recess for lunch.

MR. SARMIENTO: May I reserve my
opposition to that motion for a revote.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion
is approved.

MR. GASCON: Commissioner Monsod cannot
make that motion for reconsideration because he was not with the
majority.

MR. MONSOD: My ground for asking for a
revote is that there has been a violation of the Rules — that the three
Members were allowed to cast their votes after the second call.

MR. GASCON: My point is, it should not be
a motion for reconsideration but a motion for another voting.

MR. DE CASTRO: That is the same.

MR. MONSOD: That is right.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The
session is suspended until 2:30 p.m.

It was 12:48 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 2:59 p.m., the session was resumed
with the Honorable Efrain B. Treñas presiding.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
session is resumed.

MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Yes,
Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

I rise in connection with the motion for
reconsideration of the voting made by Commissioner Monsod before we
suspended our session this noon. Before the suspension, Mr. Presiding
Officer, I objected to the motion and to reenforce my objection, I
registered my reservation to vote or to object against the motion.
Unfortunately, the Presiding Officer, the honorable Commissioner Rigos,
before the suspension, declared or ruled that the motion passed without
any objection from the Members of the Commission.

To me, that was inaccurate since I
objected and to reenforce my objection, registered my reservation to
object against the motion.

My humble position, Mr. Presiding
Officer, is that the motion for recounting is not proper. This is clear
from the provisions of the Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual and
Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States Ninetieth
Congress and the Rules of the Batasang Pambansa which can be
invoked to govern in a supplemental manner insofar as they are not
incompatible with the provisions of these rules.

Our Rules, Mr. Presiding Officer, is
silent on this point, although inferentially we can deduce that the
voting on that section was proper.

But what does the Jefferson’s Manual state?
I would like to share this with the body. Rule 15, pages 391-392 states
that:

. . . and the Sergeant-at-Arms shall
forthwith proceed to bring in absent Members, and the yeas and nays on
the pending question shall at the same time be considered as ordered.
The Clerk shall call the roll, and each Member as he answers to his name
may vote on the pending question, and, after the roll call is
completed, each Member arrested shall be brought by the Sergeant-at-Arms
before the House, whereupon he shall be noted as present, discharged
from arrest, and given an opportunity to vote and his vote shall be
recorded . . .

Now, there is a commentary or annotation
after this rule, and the commentary states that:

Under this rule the roll is called over
twice, and those appearing after their names are called may vote.

In other words, since the three
Commissioners voted after the second call but before the announcement of
the voting, their voting was in order. It was not irregular. This is
also reenforced by the Rules of the Batasang Pambansa which states:

SECTION 102. Second Call on nominal
voting. — After the Members have voted yeas and nays, the
Secretary-General shall call in alphabetical order the names of those
who did not vote so that they may vote. After the second call, no Member
shall be allowed to vote.

In other words, before the announcement
of the results of the voting, any Member can vote after the second call.
So, my humble submission, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that the motion for
a revote made by the honorable Commissioner Monsod was not proper on
the basis of the rules I cited.

I humbly submit, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Are
there any other Commissioners who desire to talk on the matter?

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
only reason I asked for a revote was that it did not appear to be a
regular vote. We had a Commissioner rushing into the hall and voting
“yes” then somebody whispering to him, “You should vote no,” thus making
him change his vote to “no.”

What I am saying is that it was not clear
what the intent of this body was, and even when the two Commissioners
appeared on the edge of the rostrum, it was another Commissioner who was
stating what their votes were.

As a matter of fact, if one takes a look
at the record, the votes of the two Commissioners who entered through
the side door were not even heard from the recorder.

MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Yes,
Commissioner Aquino is recognized.

MS. AQUINO: When the Presiding Officer
called for a vote, I was at the dining room but I was well aware of the
proceedings that were on the floor. I was conscious of the nuances of
Commissioner Monsod’s motion to delete; I was aware of the intervention
of Commissioners Ople, Colayco, Sarmiento and Natividad.

I could not have registered a more
intelligent vote under the circumstances than when I was seated here
agonizing with my hunger pangs attacking me. Must we be faulted? In my
case, must you begrudge me for my hunger pangs pricking the rest of me?

MR. MONSOD: May I just reply, Mr.
Presiding Officer?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: I am not saying that the
Commissioner was not aware of what was going on. What I am saying is,
the circumstances under which the voting was done were such that there
could be a cloud of doubt on what the vote was because there was a
Commissioner who said “yes” and changed it to “no.” The two who voted
were not heard even from the recorder.

Thirdly, their names were called again.
In other words, there was a third call before they voted. There is no
such thing as a third call.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer,
based on the statement of Commissioner Monsod that the taking of the
vote was a little bit unclear, I think what we should apply would be the
rule in the Jefferson’s Manual which calls for a recapitulation of the
votes when they seem to be unclear.

Mr. Presiding Officer, in case the votes
are unclear, these are the precedents and comments on Section 1, Rule 15
of the Jefferson’s Manual and Rules of the House of
Representatives:

Either before announcement of the
result or after such announcement, the Speaker may order the vote
recapitulated. A member may not change his vote on recapitulation if the
result has been announced, but errors in the record of such votes may
be corrected. A motion that a vote be recapitulated is not privileged.

So, this rule speaks of errors or
probable errors in the record.

I presume that this rule on
recapitulation should be applied here.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer,
just two points in reply to Commissioner Monsod.

First of all, there have been many
instances where people rush from the lounge or from the entrance coming
precisely to catch the voting. We usually and inevitably have to go out
for personal reasons, and there is absolutely nothing wrong for any
Member of this Commission to try to rush back to make it to the voting.

Secondly, with respect to my question to
Commissioner Suarez as to what the issue was, when I was rushing back
from the lounge, it was very clear in my mind before I had left the
session hall that I was in favor of this provision proposed by the
committee to ban political dynasties.

As a matter of fact, I had interpellated
Commissioner Nolledo about this for clarification. There was no doubt in
my mind. How we vote will depend on how the motion for voting is
worded.

So, in other words, I had to clear this
with Commissioner Suarez in the nick of time. I do not know why a fellow
Commissioner would impute ill motives. Why is there this partisanship
whenever it concerns us? It seems we are always guilty of negative
motives or of ignorance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Is
the Commissioner through?

MR. VILLACORTA: I think it is very
unparliamentary, if I may say so, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Yes,
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: I was not referring to
Commissioner Villacorta when I made that statement about a Commissioner
saying “yes” and voting “no.” He was not the person I was referring to.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Are
there any more comments?

MR. VILLACORTA: The clarification is
accepted, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: I abstained during that
particular voting, but I think the motion for a revote is in order.
Under our Rules, especially Section 39 on nominal voting, the
Secretary-General shall call alphabetically the names of Members who
shall answer “yes” or “no” upon being called, after which the President
shall forthwith announce the result. It simply means that the particular
Commissioner is right here in the session hall and that is the reason
upon being called, meaning, that since he is in the session hall, he has
to state his vote. I could remember pretty well in the last voting that
the names of two were not really called. It was merely said that their
votes were such and such, so I think the motion is in order.

RULING OF THE CHAIR

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Are
there any more comments?

The Chair rules that the motion is in
order. Let us vote on the motion of Commissioner Monsod.

MS. QUESADA: Before making the vote, may
we just ask the rationale, the basis on which the Chair made its
decision to accept the motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Chair has already ruled that the motion is in order.

MS. QUESADA: Given the explanation of
Commissioner Sarmiento, what does the Chair think about the principle
being cited? This will be setting a precedent in the future on which
ruling we are going to use.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Chair believes that there was no clear voting; there were Commissioners
who voted after the second call. So, to clarify the matter, the Chair
rules that way and gives due course to the motion of Commissioner Monsod
for a recount.

MS. QUESADA: It is rather unfair because
everytime we throw this to a vote we end up being outvoted, so I think
just throwing it to the body for voting is not going to be the solution
to resolve the issue.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Let
the whole Commission decide this matter.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we
ask for a few minutes’ suspension of the session?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
session is suspended for a few minutes.

It was 3:13 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:27 p.m., the session was
resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
session is resumed.

MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO: I am made to understand
that the ruling of the Chair is that we will proceed to a voting. In
other words, we will have a recounting or revoting. But the Rules of
the House of Representatives is very clear, Mr. Presiding Officer,
as was enunciated by Commissioner Maambong, and I would like to quote
it:

A Member may not change his vote on
recapitulation if the result has been announced but errors in the record
of such votes may be corrected.

It is clear, Mr. Presiding Officer, that
since there would be a recapitulation of the result of the voting, then
no Member will be allowed to change his vote.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: In the interest of the body
so that we do not exacerbate the situation, I would like to withdraw my
motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
motion is granted. The motion of Commissioner Monsod is hereby
considered as withdrawn. May we proceed?

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: I have a proposed amendment.
The proposal is to change the word “broaden” to the following: “ENSURE
EQUAL ACCESS TO.” Then instead of “office” on line 13, I propose to
substitute the same with the word “SERVICE.” So the entire section will
read: “The State shall ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO opportunities to public
SERVICE and prohibit political dynasties.” I would like to explain the
change from “office” to “SERVICE.” If we change “office” to “SERVICE,”
we would refer to both elective and appointive positions. And political
dynasties do not necessarily apply to elective positions alone. They
would include appointive positions and perhaps more on the latter
because it is easier to get a political appointment if somebody close to
the family is an elective official, but it is difficult to have a
political dynasty on the basis of election because election is an
expensive exercise.

I changed the word “broaden” to “ENSURE
EQUAL ACCESS TO” because what is important would be equal access to the
opportunity. If you broaden, it would necessarily mean that the
government would be mandated to create as many offices as are possible
to accommodate as many people as are also possible. That is the meaning
of broadening opportunities to public service. So, in order that we
should not mandate the State to make the government the number one
employer and to limit offices only to what may be necessary and
expedient yet offering equal opportunities to access to it, I changed
the word “broaden.”

May we request the reaction of the
committee?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): What
does the committee say?

MR. TINGSON: Will the Commissioner kindly
restate his amendment?

MR. DAVIDE: As amended it will read: “The
State shall ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO opportunities to public SERVICE and
prohibit political dynasties.”

MR. TINGSON: Yes, the committee accepts
the amendment.

MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: I would like to propose an
amendment to that amendment; that is, by deleting the words “AND
PROHIBIT POLITICAL DYNASTIES.”

MR. ABUBAKAR: I second the motion.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): What
does Commissioner Davide say?

MR. DAVIDE: I would rather leave it to
the Commission, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): What
does the committee say?

MR. TINGSON: We will leave it to the
body.

MR. GUINGONA: Is that already a motion?

MR. NOLLEDO: As far as I am concerned,
Mr. Presiding Officer, I vigorously object to the amendment of
Commissioner Rodrigo.

MR. RODRIGO: That is an amendment to the
amendment which was neither accepted nor rejected. The proponent says
that he would rather leave it to the body.

MR. GUINGONA: Yes. But would that mean
that, if it is deleted, we will not be able to introduce further
amendments along this line not exactly in the same words but still
referring to political dynasties, Mr. Presiding Officer?

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
raise a point of order?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Commissioner will please proceed.

MR. NOLLEDO: We have already decided to
retain these words including prohibition against political dynasty, as
stated. There was a move to delete the provision and the substance of
the provision is found in the term “political dynasties.” The intention
of the committee is to prohibit political dynasties and, therefore, this
intention must be correlated with the entire provision. Therefore, the
motion of Commissioner Rodrigo is out of order.

MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Rodrigo will please proceed.

MR. RODRIGO: My motion is not out of
order because what was voted down before was the deletion of the whole
section. And now, there is a reworded proposal, and I am asking for a
deletion of a portion of the reworded proposal. There is a difference.
After the motion to delete the whole section was voted down, this
amendment by substitution was submitted. And my amendment to the
amendment is to delete a portion of the amendment by substitution. So
that is not res judicata, if we were to use a judicial term.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.

MR. NOLLEDO: The very life and substance
of the provision is found in the words “prohibit political dynasties”
and I think it was in that sense that the Commission voted in favor of
retaining the provision.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: The point of order raised
by Commissioner Nolledo is very well covered by Section 50 of the Rules
of the Constitutional Commission, second sentence of which reads:

. . . A motion to strike out being lost
shall not preclude an amendment or motion to strike out and insert.

That is precisely the reason the
committee and the Chair allowed Commissioner Davide to introduce an
amendment, because if it were not allowed and if we were to follow the
point of order raised by Commissioner Nolledo, there is no point of
Commissioner Davide standing up and amending the particular section not
deleted by decision of the body. So, the amendment of Commissioner
Rodrigo is quite valid because of Section 50. May I reread the whole of
Section 50, Mr. Presiding Officer.

SECTION 50. Motion to strike out
and insert. — A motion to strike out and insert is indivisible. A
motion to strike out being lost shall not preclude an amendment or
motion to strike out and insert.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
just state one sentence?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): What
does Commissioner Nolledo say in response?

MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to say that the
motion of Commissioner Rodrigo is really a motion to delete the very
life of the provision. So he is restating the original motion which was
already defeated.

MR. RODRIGO: No, Mr. Presiding Officer.
The substance of the provision, even before the amendment, is to broaden
opportunities to public office.

MR. NOLLEDO: That is not the substance.

MR. RODRIGO: This matter of political
dynasty is just a colatilla and in the reformulated amendment by
substitution, the substance is also to broaden opportunities to seek
public office. As a matter of fact, I am asking for the deletion of “AND
PROHIBIT POLITICAL DYNASTIES” because, by prohibiting political
dynasties, we do not broaden but restrict opportunities for public
office. That phrase is even incompatible, inconsistent with the very
substance of the proposed amendment.

MS. QUESADA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Quesada is recognized.

MS. QUESADA: Parliamentary inquiry. Can
we ask our parliamentarian, Commissioner Maambong, clarification for us
“nonparliamentarians” who are getting confused with the rigmarole of
rules that are being used? We are lost somehow in the process of
discussion. If I recall it right, as stated in the provision that was
read in our Rules, when the motion to delete is lost — and that was the
motion that we first heard this morning if I remember it right, by
Commissioner Monsod and Commissioner Jamir — it was lost. But now it
appears that there is another motion to delete the words that were
contained in the total section which we had already approved.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, let
us translate the Rules into simple terms. We have a formulation
presented by the committee. Then there was a motion to delete. The
motion to delete was lost. What is the effect? We are back to square
one. We still have the formulation of the committee, which is now
subject to amendment and that is exactly what we are doing. When the
motion to delete was lost, the original formulation of the committee
remains on the record and it is now subject to amendment. That is why
the Rules clearly provides that when the motion to delete is lost, it
shall not preclude an amendment or motion to strike out and insert,
meaning, that we are back to square one. We still have the original
formulation of the committee, which is now subject to amendment.

MS. QUESADA: Commissioner Maambong, would
the basic concepts contained in the proposed provision be changed?

MR. MAAMBONG: We can change the concept;
we can even change the whole provision because we are now open to
amendment — we call it the primary amendment — because the original
provision is now back in the committee report, since the motion to
delete was lost. That is the situation, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MS. QUESADA: All right.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
have to answer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Is
Commissioner Quesada clarified?

MS. QUESADA: I am just wondering why on
this very important issue which, as the people have expressed is one of
their big concerns, we seem to be divided. I just feel that we have to
respond to the people’s call during the public hearings when we said we
never again should allow political dynasties to rule in our country.

MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Guingona is recognized.

MR. GUINGONA: May I respectfully request
for a reply regarding my question if the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Rodrigo is approved by this Commission whether we would be
precluded from proposing another amendment relative to political
dynasties?

MR. RODRIGO: My opinion is, if the
proposed addition is substantially the same as the portion that was
deleted, then that cannot be considered anymore. But if it is not
substantially the same, then it can be considered.

MR. GUINGONA: I was asking for the reply
of the Chair.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Yes,
the Chair agrees, if there is substantial change.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.

MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to respond to
the statement of Commissioner Rodrigo that the prohibition of political
dynasties is only correlative to the first part. I was interpellated by
Commissioner Ople and I agreed with him when he asked if it was the
intention of the committee to prohibit political dynasties in order to
widen opportunities to public office and I answered yes. In other words,
the first part is only the effect of the conclusion and that was very
clear when Commissioner Ople interpellated me. I vigorously dissent from
his view that by prohibiting political dynasties we will limit
opportunities to public office. I adequately explained this already this
morning and I need not repeat it unless Commissioner Rodrigo is willing
to listen again.

MR. RODRIGO: The Gentleman has said
enough.

SR. TAN: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Chair recognizes Commissioner Tan.

SR. TAN: Mr. Presiding Officer, if I
understand the main import and the main content of what we voted on so
passionately, it was political dynasties. Now we are changing and
amending it, and we can make the law. We can apply the law in whatever
way we wish so that it comes out that we are not returning what we tried
to delete, but in our hearts we know that the main point was political
dynasties. And whatever words we use, we know that the main point is
political dynasties. And I want to put that on record because those who
vote against are voting against political dynasties, and those who vote
for, want political dynasties to be perpetuated.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. ABUBAKAR: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
have not spoken yet.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Just a
minute. Who is first?

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.

We are not talking here of political
dynasties; we are talking here of Rule X, Section 50 of our Rules as
well-explained and expounded by Honorable Maambong. I will request,
therefore, that Section 50 of our Rules be applied.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.

MR. ABUBAKAR: I just arrived and it seems
the debate centers on a proposition that is vital to our democracy.

This Constitutional Commission, composed
of intelligent people, people who believe in the dictum that the voice
of the people is the voice of God, is very religious. How can we, on the
assumption that we are only appointed, or even if we were elected,
suppress the voice of the people if they want an elected representative
to continue with one, two, three terms? So be it. We are not here to
suppress that voice. We are here to give reality and to give substance
to what the people want; not to suppress their desire to elect their own
representatives for the terms that they wanted them to have. So I would
presume that this Commission will be able to come up with a
Constitution that the people can embrace, approve and conceive as a
document that looks after their interest, first and foremost. We should
not contradict this voice. If a dynasty or a family is wanted by the
people to represent them for two terms and another would succeed, who
are we to question their choice or their voice? We are here on a
constitutional mandate, and let not our power be abused at the expense
of the right of the people for I believe in the dictum that the ultimate
power lies in the people and the voice of the people is the voice of
God. So, I agree with the proposition of Commissioner Rodrigo, which is
to eliminate that portion and let the beginning stand and eliminate
“prohibit political dynasties.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Chair noticed that the Floor Leader, Mr. Rama, is not here, and appoints
Commissioner Maambong as Acting Floor Leader.

May the Chair inquire what the
parliamentary situation is.

MR. MAAMBONG: I think, Mr. Presiding
Officer, we are ready to take a vote on the motion of Commissioner
Rodrigo for the deletion of that particular portion he mentioned.

MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO: May I just say a few
words? May I just trace the history of this discussion? Before the
suspension of the session this noon, Mr. Presiding Officer, we have this
motion from Commissioner Monsod for the total deletion of this section
and by a vote of 18 against 17, the motion was rejected or voted down.
Now we have this Rodrigo motion for the deletion of that portion of the
whole which we already approved in principle. In other words, here he
comes asking for the deletion of that part which is a parcel of the
whole which we have acted upon favorably. My submission, Mr. Presiding
Officer, is that it is out of order. Secondly, we have this comment from
Commissioner Maambong citing Section 50 of the Rules. But Section 50
reads: “Motion to strike out and insert.” It is not only motion to
strike out but we have the two words “and insert.” At most, for the
motion to be proper, it should be a motion to strike out and insert, but
Commissioner Rodrigo’s motion is only a motion to strike out.

MR. DE CASTRO: Please read the second
sentence.

MR. SARMIENTO: But the section should be
read as a whole.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Just a
minute, Commissioner Sarmiento has the floor.

MR. SARMIENTO: My submission, Mr.
Presiding Officer, is that the motion to strike out is a violation of
what we have approved favorably this noon and a violation of Section 50
of our Rules.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Does
Commissioner de Castro desire to be recognized?

MR. DE CASTRO: I would request the
Honorable Sarmiento to read the second sentence of Section 50. It
states, and I quote: “A motion to strike out” — and that is the motion
of Commissioner Monsod to delete — “being lost,” which was lost by
questionable votes, “shall not preclude an amendment . . .”

Now here comes Commissioner Davide making
the amendment — “or motion to strike out.” Then here comes Commissioner
Rodrigo striking out. Mr. Presiding Officer, the whole of the second
sentence of Section 50 is applicable to the question on the floor now. I
support the explanation of Commissioner Maambong.

MR. SARMIENTO: May I respond, Mr.
Presiding Officer, to the comments of Commissioner de Castro.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Just a
minute, Commissioner Sarmiento.

MR. SARMIENTO: May I invite the attention
of Commissioner de Castro. The caption of Section 50 reads: “Motion to
strike out and insert.” And the first sentence also reads: “A motion to
strike out and insert is indivisible.”

MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, we agree.

MR. SARMIENTO: So we should read the
section in toto, Mr. Presiding Officer, not by parts.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Before we take a vote, may I
ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, since
the motion of Commissioner Rodrigo is directed to my amendment, I would
only like to explain that I am not accepting the same. And I do not
think Section 50 will apply, because I now feel very strongly that the
second sentence of Section 50 would only be true if the motion following
a rejection of a motion to strike out would be an indivisible motion
consisting actually of two: to strike out and to insert.

The amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo is
merely an amendment to my amendment. My amendment is not to strike out
and insert, but merely to change certain words. And so, I feel that if
the matter is to be submitted to a vote, we should consider into account
that the motion of Commissioner Rodrigo, he not being the main
proponent of an amendment, cannot be taken under Section 50 as a motion
indivisible in character, which is a motion to strike out and to insert.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: There are only two
sentences of Section 50. I am not interpreting it as a lawyer. I am only
interpreting it as a layman: Motion to strike out and insert. Dalawa
iyan — strike out and insert. That is the caption of the section. Comes
now the first sentence, “A motion to strike out and insert is
indivisible.” Unluckily, the motion of Commissioner Monsod is only to
strike out — to delete; not to insert. So, that first sentence does not
apply. What is applicable now is a motion to strike out, no longer
insert. Basahin ninyo iyan. Walang “insert” diyan. “Being lost.” In
fact, it was lost. “Shall not preclude,” hindi aniya maaaring pagbawalan
ang gagawing amendment or motion to strike out and insert, which is the
motion of the Honorable Davide. And here comes the Honorable Rodrigo
striking out certain portions.

I would request the Honorable Chief
Justice, the ranking jurist in this hall — I am not interpreting this as
a lawyer, although I am a lawyer — to clear the situation for us.

MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): May
we have a recess?

MR. RODRIGO: Yes, I just want to state
that the situation is this. Commissioner Davide so presented an
amendment by substitution. And I presented an amendment to his
amendment. He did not accept my amendment to his amendment. So the
situation is, the body should vote on whether to vote for or against my
amendment to his amendment.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, for
the record, my amendment was not an amendment by substitution. My
amendment is to change only the following words — “broaden” and
“office.” And so, it is not to be considered technically as an amendment
by substitution.

MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we
be recognized?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Suarez is recognized.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

May we address a few questions to the
Honorable Nolledo who is seeking a question of point of order as against
the proposals submitted by the Honorable Commissioner Rodrigo.

MR. NOLLEDO: Willingly, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.

Mr. Presiding Officer, the Gentleman is
raising a point of order because of the fact that before we recessed at
lunchtime, there was already a motion to delete this particular section
and that motion was turned down by a vote of 18 against 19. Is my
understanding correct, Mr. Presiding Officer?

MR. NOLLEDO: Correct, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

MR. SUAREZ: And the Gentleman is saying
that because of such development, that should practically bar any
further motion to delete the substance of this particular provision. Am I
also right in my understanding, Mr. Presiding Officer?

MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman is absolutely
right, Mr. Presiding Officer, with emphasis on the word “substance.”

MR. SUAREZ: And when we speak of
“substance” there are two things, two principal features that appear in
this particular provision: The first one is that one pointed out by the
Honorable Rodrigo; that is, the broadening of opportunities for public
participation by the people, and the second one is the one pointed out
by the Gentleman — the prohibition against political dynasties. Am I
right in that regard, Mr. Presiding Officer?

MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer,
and may I add that before the motion to delete was filed by Commissioner
Monsod, all the discussions were centered on whether or not to prohibit
political dynasties.

MR. SUAREZ: That was beautifully put, and
I confirm that because I was listening to all the arguments regarding
this matter seeking the deletion of that particular phrase regarding the
establishment or creation of political dynasties.

Not too long ago, Mr. Presiding Officer, I
also suffered a similar setback regarding this. The Gentleman will
remember that when we were seeking the deletion of the phrase in
connection with that provision in the Declaration of Principles
governing the establishment of foreign military bases here —
transposition from the Declaration of Principles Article to the Article
on Transitory Provisions beginning with the words “after the termination
of the RP-US Bases Military Agreement in 1991.” And I was met with the
observation by no less than the chairman of the Steering Committee that
we must be governed, not only by the text, but also by the concepts and
principles which are covered by the particular provision, the deletion
of which is being sought. Does the Gentleman remember that incident, Mr.
Presiding Officer?

MR. NOLLEDO: I remember very well, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

MR. SUAREZ: Now the Gentleman is invoking
the principle that after all is said and done, nothing should be in
derogation of the substance and the principles already enunciated and
already stated in the principle which had already been attacked by
virtue of a motion to delete which had been voted down by the House or
by the Commission.

MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman is right, Mr.
Presiding Officer, and, therefore, the provision authorizing to strike
out in Section 50 of our Rules cannot apply to the substance of this
provision.

MR. SUAREZ: And that is the reason the
Gentleman is saying that the Honorable Rodrigo, with due respect to him,
is out of order in this regard.

MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: Yes. When Commissioner
Davide proposed his amendment to Section 19, he did not just say change
this word to another word or change that word to another word. He
submitted a whole sentence similar to this provision. So, I took it as
an amendment by substitution. And it being an amendment by substitution,
I stood up to propose an amendment to his amendment, which is to delete
a portion of this section as formulated by him — the portion is to
prohibit political dynasties. They say this was already voted upon. No.
What was voted upon was the deletion of the entire section before. And
by deleting that entire section we would delete the most important
principle enunciated in that section; that is, the first portion of that
section which reads: “The State shall broaden opportunities to public
office.” That is the very important principle in that section.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. RODRIGO: I would presume that those
who voted against the deletion of the entire section had in mind that
very important principle which would have been deleted if the motion to
delete the entire section being voted upon won. But now, I am not asking
for the deletion of the entire section. I am only asking for the
deletion of a portion of the section as reworded by the proponent,
Commissioner Davide.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. RODRIGO: Commissioner Davide refused
my amendment. I think the situation should be to let the body vote on my
amendment to my amendment. Why prevent the body?

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Just a
minute, Commissioner Padilla has been standing for some time.

MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, as I
understand the situation, there is a provision supported or advocated by
the committee. Then, Commissioner Davide proposed an amendment to the
provision. Thereafter, Commissioner Rodrigo submitted an amendment to
the amendment of Mr. Davide which Mr. Davide did not accept. And,
therefore, the parliamentary situation is: That the body should vote on
the amendment to the amendment. And that is provided in Section 48 on
Amendments:

When a motion or proposition is under
consideration, a motion to amend and a motion to amend that amendment
shall be in order.

So, we should vote on the amendment of
Commissioner Rodrigo to the amendment of Commissioner Davide which the
latter did not accept.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Maambong is recognized first.

MR. MAAMBONG: So we can go forward, Mr.
Presiding Officer. I would like to clarify the situation by asking the
committee, first, whether it accepts the amendment of Commissioner
Davide to delete the word “broaden” and in its place to put the words
“ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO”; to delete the word “office” and replace it
with “SERVICE.” So that the whole Section would read: “The State shall
ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO opportunities to public SERVICE and prohibit
political dynasties.”

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
committee would accept that.

MR. MAAMBONG: Since that is accepted,
there is now a pending motion to amend the amendment of Commissioner
Davide by Commissioner Rodrigo. But just to keep the parliamentary
situation in order, we cannot proceed to that, Mr. Presiding Officer,
unless we resolve the point of order raised by Commissioner Nolledo. And
the point of order raised is that we cannot vote on the motion of
Commissioner Rodrigo to delete the words “and prohibit political
dynasties.” There are some who believe that Section 50, which is very
clear, should apply; the others believe that Section 50 should not
apply. So, we request the ruling of the Chair on the point of order of
Commissioner Nolledo so that we can proceed further.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Before the Chair makes a ruling, it would like to have the session
suspended.

It was 4:03 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:06 p.m., the session was
resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
session is resumed.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
are now ready to vote on the point of order presented by Commissioner
Nolledo of the committee.

RULING OF THE CHAIR

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Chair rules that the point of order raised by Commissioner Nolledo is
not well taken because of Section 50.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
appeal to the ruling of the Chair.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, an
appeal to the ruling of the Chair is not debatable. We can now put it to
a vote. Those who are in favor, for example, of the ruling of the Chair
and those who are against. May the Chair now put forward the appeal of
Commissioner Nolledo so that the floor can vote on it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Since
Commissioner Nolledo has appealed to the Commission on its ruling,
those in favor of the ruling of the Chair just made, please raise their
hand.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer,
before we vote . . .

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): We
are voting already.

MR. DE CASTRO: May I know the basis of
the appeal?

MR. NOLLEDO: The basis of the appeal can
be gleamed from the arguments that I have presented. I have presented
the arguments against the motion of Commissioner Rodrigo and the
arguments are embodied therein.

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Can
we proceed?

As many as are in favor of the ruling of
the Chair just made, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)

As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)

The results show 18 votes in favor, 14
against and no abstention; the ruling of the Chair is upheld.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: We are now ready to vote on
the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo to the amendment of Commissioner
Davide. I would like to clarify the situation. The amendment of
Commissioner Davide as incorporated, Section 23, which is now Section
20, reads: “The State shall ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO opportunities to
public service and prohibit political dynasties.” The amendment to the
amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo would seek to delete the following
words after “service” — “and prohibit political dynasties.”

We are ready for a vote, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Gascon is recognized.

MR. GASCON: Since we voted nominally this
morning, I would like to request that we vote again nominally on the
motion to delete of Commissioner Rodrigo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Before we vote, may the Chair request that the bell be rung so that
Commissioners will come in. (The bell is sounded to call in the
Commissioners.)

MR. COLAYCO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Colayco is recognized.

MR. COLAYCO: I believe that we are
departing from past practice. My recollection is that when an amendment
is proposed to a first amendment and the proponent of the first
amendment does not accept the second amendment to his amendment, the
body voted on the main amendment first. That is my recollection.

What is going to happen now? Let us
suppose now that the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo is voted upon
favorably. It would, in effect, be a reconsideration of the first vote
taken on the main section. Will that stop now an amendment again to
resurrect on the same issue? We will never be finished with this.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Is
the Gentleman through?

MR. COLAYCO: Let us simplify the issue.
The first issue was that the body rejected the motion to delete the
section prohibiting political dynasties. As things stood then, the
section prohibiting political dynasties was approved. Now, if we are
going to accept the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo, it is, in effect,
a motion for reconsideration because substantially it is the same.

But what happens if we vote now in favor
of the motion for reconsideration of the amendment? We will be back
where we were. Again what will stop somebody with another amendment to
amend the vote which, in effect, struck out the section, which we have
agreed upon by a vote of 18 to 17 to remain?

I think the motion of Commissioner
Rodrigo is inconsistent with the first vote which approved the retention
of the section for the prohibition against a political dynasty. That is
my position, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): May I
call the Gentleman’s attention to Section 48 of our Rules which
provides, among others, and I quote:

When a motion or proposition is under
consideration, a motion to amend and a motion to amend that amendment
shall be in order.

MR. COLAYCO: But the basic issue, Mr.
Presiding Officer, is whether the amendment which is sought to be pushed
by Commissioner Rodrigo is not inconsistent with the first position
taken and voted upon affirmatively by the body.

MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, that
matter was already decided by the body; that was the subject of the
point of order by Commissioner Nolledo, and we already voted on that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Precisely.

MR. COLAYCO: I bow to the majority.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas). To be
cleared, can the Acting Floor Leader state the motion supposed to be
voted upon.

MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

The issue before the body, Mr. Presiding
Officer, is the amendment to the amendment of Commissioner Davide
presented by Commissioner Rodrigo, and this amendment to the amendment
seeks to delete the words “and prohibit political dynasties” in Section
23 which is now Section 20.

I will repeat that. The amendment to the
amendment seeks to delete the words “and prohibit political dynasties”
from that particular section. We are ready for a vote, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): As
many as are in favor, please raise their hand.

MR. GASCON: I made a motion for nominal
voting, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. NOLLEDO: There is a request for
nominal voting, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Will
the Acting Floor Leader state the amendment for the clarification of
all, so that they will know and there is no question later on?

MR. MAAMBONG: The amendment of
Commissioner Rodrigo seeks to delete the words “and prohibit political
dynasties.”

Those who vote “yes” will be voting for
the deletion of the words “and prohibit political dynasties.” I think
that is clear enough.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Is
that clear enough?

MR. MAAMBONG: But before we proceed, Mr.
Presiding Officer, I am still worried about the Rules. In case of
nominal voting, there is supposed to be one-fifth of the membership of
the body who should vote for nominal voting.

I am asking that, considering that 14
voted on the previous issue, the floor would like to suggest that we
will waive that requirement of one-fifth. At any rate, we can get
one-fifth anyway. Just the same, I want to indicate that in the
proceedings so that it will not appear that the Acting Floor Leader was
remiss in his duties regarding the one-fifth requirement of nominal
voting.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: Just a matter of
clarification. Can anybody ask for a nominal voting?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Yes.

MR. DE CASTRO: If the answer is yes, it
is all right with me, because the Rules does not also say who can ask
for nominal voting. The Rules is silent on this.

Now, may the Chair inform us whether
anybody, any Member of the Commission can ask for nominal voting?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): What
we have done before was, upon request, to have nominal voting.

MR. DE CASTRO: Upon request of one?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Yes.

MR. DE CASTRO: Then the next question is
for clarification. When we vote “yes,” it means that we are in favor of
the Rodrigo amendment; that is, to delete the words “and prohibit
political dynasties,” and when we vote “no,” that means the words
“political dynasties” shall stay there.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

NOMINAL VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): We
shall now proceed to a nominal voting on this matter.

FIRST ROLL CALL

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Abubakar	Yes	Azcuna	No
Alonto		Bacani	No
Aquino	No	Bengzon	Yes
Bennagen	No	Concepcion	Yes
Bernas	No	Davide	No
Rosario Braid	No	Foz	No
Calderon	Yes	Garcia	No
Castro de	Yes	Gascon
Colayco	No

COMMISSIONER GASCON
EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. GASCON: I would like to explain my
negative vote. I believe that we should have a categorical statement on
prohibition of political dynasties, and second, I personally believe
that this is a motion for reconsideration of what we already agreed
upon.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Guingona	No	Padilla	Yes
Jamir	Yes	Quesada	No
Lerum		Rama
Maambong	Yes	Reyes de los	No
Monsod	Yes	Rigos	Yes
Munoz-Palma		Rodrigo	Yes
Natividad	Yes	Romulo	Yes
Nieva	No	Rosales
Nolledo	No	Sarmiento	No
Ople	Yes	Suarez

COMMISSIONER SUAREZ
EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. SUAREZ: I vote no, and I submit, Mr.
Presiding Officer, that we should have integrity in the decisions
already made by the Commission and by the Commissioners.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Sumulong

Yes

Tadeo

COMMISSIONER TADEO
EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. TADEO: I vote no. Nais ko lang
ipaliwanag ang aking boto.

Sa simpleng kaisipan ng magbubukid, sa
pinagbotohan natin kanginang 17 and 18, ang pinakamahalaga ay ang
prohibition ng political dynasties na siyang magbro-broaden ng
opportunities sa public office.

Hindi ko makita ang katinuan ng
kapulungang ito; hindi ko makita ang tilamsik ng katuwiran ng
kapulungang ito. Ako ay nalilito. Sa simpleng kaalaman natin,
pinagbotohan na natin ito. Pero bakit tayo nagkakaganito? Nawawala ang
ating katinuan.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Tan

COMMISSIONER TAN EXPLAINS
HER VOTE

SR. TAN: I vote no, because I think we
are being fooled.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Tingson	Yes	Villacorta	No
Treñas	Yes	Villegas
Uka	Yes

SECOND ROLL CALL

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not
registered their votes.

Alonto		Rama
Lerum		Rosales
Munoz-Palma		Villegas

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
results show 18 votes in favor, 21 against and no abstention; the
proposed amendment of Mr. Rodrigo is lost.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, if
there are no other amendments, the chairman of the committee is
recognized.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Tingson is recognized.

MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Just a
minute, Commissioner Tingson, the chairman is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: I would like to call on the
floor, Mr. Presiding Officer, if there are no other amendments on this
Section 23, which is now renumbered as Section 20. If there are no other
amendments, I would now ask for a vote by the body on the amendment of
Commissioner Davide.

MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
have an amendment to the amendment.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
ask that Commissioner Guingona be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Guingona is recognized.

MR. GUINGONA: Inasmuch as the honorable
Commissioner Nolledo has, in reply to my interpellation, mentioned that
the term “political dynasties” has to be defined by law, I would like to
add the words “AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.” Would the Gentleman accept
the amendment?

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: I regret that I cannot accept
the proposal for the following reasons: One, I do not think it would be
appropriate to state in the Declaration of Principles that it may be
provided by law.

Secondly, I think that Congress, in the
exercise of its plenary power, can provide for the necessary guidelines
in the implementation of the rule against political dynasties.

MR. GUINGONA: May I inquire, Mr.
Presiding Officer, if the manifestation of Commissioner Davide is the
sense of the committee?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): What
does the committee say?

MR. TINGSON: I heard a while ago that we
would accept that but I am not too sure now, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. NOLLEDO: I have no objection to the
amendment of Commissioner Guingona because the definition of “political
dynasty” is left to Congress.

MR. DAVIDE: Is that the stand of the
committee? Since the committee has accepted my proposal, the committee
has the complete jurisdiction over the matter. But I would rather,
however, propose that instead of “as may be provided by law” we say “AS
MAY BE DEFINED BY LAW.”

MR. GUINGONA: “AS MAY BE DEFINED BY LAW.”
I will accede to that. Would the committee accept, Mr. Presiding
Officer?

MR. TINGSON: We accept that. The
committee accepts that.

MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
are now ready to vote on the formulation of the original Section 23, now
renumbered as Section 20, and it would read as follows, as amended by
Commissioner Davide and amended also by Commissioner Guingona: “The
State shall ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES TO PUBLIC SERVICE and
prohibit political dynasties AS MAY BE DEFINED BY LAW.” We are now ready
for a vote; Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. GASCON: Mine is just a question of
style, Mr. Presiding Officer. Is it “TO PUBLIC SERVICE” or “FOR PUBLIC
SERVICE”?

MR. DAVIDE: “TO” is better I guess, but
“FOR” will still do. We would rather leave it to the Style Committee.

However, may I propose that there should
be a comma (,) after “SERVICE” since the definition by law would refer
to “political dynasties.”

MR. MAAMBONG: We will, therefore, restate
the formulation: “The State shall ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES
TO PUBLIC SERVICE, and prohibit political dynasties AS MAY BE DEFINED BY
LAW.” We are now ready for a vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Suarez is recognized.

MR. SUAREZ: Just a point of clarification
from the distinguished proponent. May I just clear it up with Honorable
Davide. There might be some points of inconsistency here because in the
first sentence we are saying that the State should give equal access to
opportunities in order that the people can render public service, but
the last portion would prohibit political dynasties in the manner
prescribed by law. Would this not be a limitation of that equal access
to opportunities?

MR. DAVIDE: No, Mr. Presiding Officer. On
the contrary the idea of eliminating political dynasties is really to
see to it that there will be greater opportunities to public service. We
have to consider the common good or the greater number of people who
will be benefited. When we prohibit political dynasties, it is to open
up the opportunities to more and more people, otherwise it would be a
monopoly only of a very few.

MR. SUAREZ: In other words, what we are
saying is we are prohibiting the incumbents and their relatives from
aspiring for that same position so that everybody will have equal access
to or opportunity for this position.

MR. DAVIDE: That is my perception, Mr.
Presiding Officer — not only relatives aspiring for the same office.
Probably the law may provide that during the incumbency of an elective
official, relatives may not be allowed to run for a position within the
same political unit or to be appointed to any position within the same
political unit. I say the same political unit because necessarily we
cannot prevent, for instance, a son whose father is the governor of
Metro Manila to run in Davao.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for clearing up the
apparent inconsistency which does not exist at all.

Thank you.

MR. MAAMBONG: We are now ready for a
vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Is
the body ready to vote on the formulation or should it be read again?

MR. MAAMBONG: I suggest that it would now
be the committee which should present the formulation, if it has the
complete formulation, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): For
the information of the body, may the Chair suggest that the committee
read what shall be voted upon.

MR. TINGSON: I think since Commissioner
Nolledo has been carrying the ball for this, will the Gentleman kindly
restate the formulation of Section 20.

MR. NOLLEDO: “The State shall ENSURE
EQUAL ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE, and prohibit political
dynasties AS MAY BE DEFINED BY LAW.”

MR. MAAMBONG: With comma (,) after
“service,” Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): As
many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (One Member raised his hand.)

As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (One Member raised his hand.)

The results show 25 votes in favor, 1
against and 1 abstention; Section 20 is approved.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
body is now ready to consider the original Section 24, now renumbered
Section 21, on the right of asylum to foreigners.

We turn this over, Mr. Presiding Officer,
to the chairman of the committee.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
chairman of the committee is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, allow
me to read the original formulation here. Section 21 now reads: “The
Philippines, under the conditions laid down by law, shall grant asylum
to foreigners who secuted in their country in defense of human rights
and in the liberation of their country, and they shall not be
extradited.”

Mr. Presiding Officer, as chairman of
this committee, I have been looking for the paternity to this particular
section. I was requested to refer to the other one, but the other one I
referred to also did not want to do it. So, on my own as chairman of
the committee, because of this, I am proposing that we delete this
unless, of course, one of them would take it up.

MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Guingona is recognized.

MR. GUINGONA: I would like to support the
proposal of the committee to delete.

May I be allowed to explain?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Yes,
in three minutes.

MR. GUINGONA: I would like to support the
move to delete, notwithstanding the fact that I favor the extension of
asylum to foreigners who are persecuted in their countries in defense of
human rights and in the liberation of their country.

I am aware that the right of asylum is
among those enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I
believe, however, that the grant of asylum should not be contained in
the fundamental law. It could be well the subject of statutory law which
could determine when and to what extent the right is to be provided
for, taking into consideration various factors, including the economic
conditions of our country.

At the time when many of our brother and
sister Filipinos are suffering from brutalizing poverty, perhaps we
should concern ourselves more about them. After all, there is the truism
that charity begins at home. This is not to say that we should close
our doors completely to the possible entry of deserving refugees. All we
are saying is that we should go slow about the grant of asylum at the
present time without prejudice to being less selective in granting
asylum as our country’s economic recovery progresses.

Let me express a few random thoughts on
the problems attendant to the grant of asylum. Unless adequate
safeguards are provided, there is the possibility of our allowing the
entry of undesirable aliens, including those who might be engaged in
espionage; and people lake Castro of Cuba and Khomeini of Iran, who were
once upon a time legitimate freedom fighters. Also, it might be noted
that the refugees are extended rights under the Refugee Convention of
1951 and the Protocol of 1967, as well as the Declaration on Territorial
Asylum. Under the terms of the Convention, they are entitled to what is
referred to as “quasi-consular” functions to be discharged by the
asylum state. The refugee is supposed to enjoy rights, including
assistance, which could include food, clothing and shelter where he has
none (Article 25 of the Convention), be issued identity papers (Article
27) and others. Congress would probably have to set quotas in order to
forestall the massive influx of refugees when a situation like the
takeover by the Communists of Vietnam occurs.

The proposed provision even makes matters
worse by saying that “refugees granted asylum shall not be extradited.”
It is quite possible that the State of which the refugee is or was a
national, or the demanding State, might be able to produce after the
grant of asylum convincing proof that the said refugee, while committing
acts of sedition, had also committed other acts which are unrelated to
his political offense, like murder, not homicide. Or it might produce
convincing proof that before the commission of political offense, the
refugee had, in fact, committed a criminal offense. Such was the case of
Antonio Ezeta who was held extraditable on a charge of attempted murder
prior to political hostilities. Or again acts may have been committed,
unknown to the asylum State, during the commission of the political
offense as happened to Clodovio Ortiz Gonzales, a paramilitary officer
of the Trujillo Government in the Dominican Republic who was accused of
torture.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Gentleman’s three minutes is up.

MR. GUINGONA: Just to close, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): All
right.

MR. GUINGONA: In all these instances, the
State would be confronted with a problem. Under customary international
law the committee would, in the instances cited, come into the picture
especially where the State would wish to continue friendly relations.
The matter would be aggravated if there were existing extradition
treaties between the two countries because then we would be bound to
honor the terms thereof, otherwise we would be violating the fundamental
principle of pacta sent servanda. Violation of the terms of the treaty
could lead to denunciation or abrogation of the said treaty by the
offended State.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. GARCIA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Garcia is recognized.

MR. GARCIA: Thank you very much.

First of all, I would like to protest
vigorously what the acting chairman of the committee has done. This
provision was actually already adopted by the Committee on the Bill of
Rights, Political Rights, and it was sought that it be placed here on
the Declaration of Principles which was also accepted by the committee.
In fact, the committee amendment is only the deletion of the last phrase
“and they shall not be extradited.”

Let me explain very briefly. This is
actually contained already in Number 1, Article XIV of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights which provides that everyone has the right
to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution which is,
in fact, a peaceful and humanitarian act.

Furthermore, on December 14, 1967, the
General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a declaration on
territorial asylum. The granting of political asylum is governed by
certain articles in this declaration. Article I states:

Asylum granted by a State in the
exercise of its sovereignty to persons entitled to invoke Article XIV of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including persons struggling
against colonialism, shall be respected by all other States.

No. 2 in the same article states:

The right to seek and to enjoy asylum
may not be invoked by any person with respect to whom there are serious
reasons for considering that he has committed a crime against peace, a
war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international
instruments drawn up to make provisions in respect to such crimes.

In other words, Mr. Presiding Officer,
including this in our Declaration of Principles simply accepts what we
already stated earlier in Article I of the Declaration of Principles and
makes the international law and other such instruments as also part of
our own legal equipment.

So, I would like very much to protest
what the acting chairman has done. I think this has already been voted
by the body to be incorporated into this Constitution. It was simply
transposed to the Declaration of Principles. That is the state of this
provision.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Tingson is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: Please allow me to explain. I
know that Section 24, originally in our committee deliberations was
fathered, so to speak, by Commissioner Nolledo and Commissioner Garcia.
This morning I asked Commissioner Nolledo if he would please articulate
this particular section because as chairman that is what I do, if the
Gentleman has noticed. He said, “No, I will not do it, you ask
Commissioner Garcia.” I went to Commissioner Garcia and he also refused.
So, I just took it for granted that both of them, being the original
formulators of Section 24, were not interested anymore.

Anyway, I am not formally asking for
deletion; I just thought that was what both of us wanted. But I did not
formally ask for deletion. If the Gentleman is presenting it now and he
is a member of the committee, then he has the privilege of doing it.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: What the Acting Floor
Leader understood from the statement of Commissioner Tingson was that
his suggestion to delete was subject to a resolutory condition that
nobody would sponsor it. So, now that somebody is about to sponsor it,
the Acting Floor Leader would like to know who indeed will sponsor this
so that somebody can answer whatever questions will be propounded by the
Members of the Commission. It is understood, Mr. Chairman, that the one
who will answer any problems in the process of amendment will be
Commissioner Garcia. Is the understanding of the Acting Floor Leader
correct?

MR. TINGSON: And also Commissioner
Nolledo.

MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.

FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Bernas is recognized.

FR. BERNAS: I would just like to
reiterate the point raised by Commissioner Garcia with respect to that
portion which grants asylum. I remember very distinctly when we were
sponsoring the Article on the Bill of Rights that this was proposed by
Commissioner Nolledo. I opposed Commissioner Nolledo. I lost to
Commissioner Nolledo when the Commission voted and on the understanding
that this provision would be transferred to the Declaration of
Principles upon approval then, and it was approved then. So we cannot,
it seems to me, reopen a discussion on the matter of asylum without
suspending the Rules because, in effect, the motion to delete is a
motion for reconsideration and the motion for reconsideration comes more
than two months late.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: In order to clarify our
records on this, if the Chairman of the Committee on the Bill of Rights
is around, I hope there will be a confirmation of the statement of
Commissioner Bernas.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Nolledo is recognized

MR. NOLLEDO: That provision was
adequately discussed before the Commission. It was even amended by
Commissioner Ople when he added the words “as may be provided by law”
because he felt that it should be Congress that should decide the
conditions under which the right of asylum may be granted.

FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Bernas is recognized.

FR. BERNAS: I suggest that we go back to
the records and find out what we approved then and then we will be able
to determine just what we discussed and rather than discuss this now, we
should go to another topic while the Secretariat can look this up in
the records. It comes under the discussion on the Bill of Rights.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, in
view of the manifestation of the Acting Chairman of the Bill of Rights,
Commissioner Bernas, the Acting Floor Leader, therefore, moves to
suspend consideration of Section 24 which is now renumbered Section 21
and we proceed to Section 25 now renumbered as Section 22 regarding the
supremacy of civilian authority over the military. We now call the
chairman of the committee.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Is
there any objection to the motion that we suspend consideration of
Section 24, now Section 21, pending the checking of the records by the
Secretary-General and we move to Section 25, now Section 22?

MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
support the motion especially since I heard my name mentioned as one of
those who amended the original provision. I do recall that I took part
in the general debate and interpellation on this provisions. I do not
recall that I was present during the period of amendments and had
actually amended it. So I would be very indebted myself, if the memories
of all the Commissioners could be helped through the production of the
pertinent records.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Is
there any objection to the motion that we move to Section 25, now
Section 22? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
carried.

We proceed to Section 25, now Section 22.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
ask that the Chairman of the committee be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
chairman is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer,
Section 22 remains as originally formulated: “The civilian authority is
at all times supreme over the military.”

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: I have a very simple
proposal, but to give it more teeth, to give it strength, vigor, vim and
vitality, I propose to just insert a comma (,) after “is” and a comma
(,) after “times.” So it will read: “The civilian authority IS, at all
times, supreme over the military.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): What
does the committee say?

MR. TINGSON: We accept, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Is
there any comment?

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer,
there are no other Commissioners who would like to propose any
amendments. We are now ready for a vote on Section 25 now renumbered as
Section 22.

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): As
many as are in favor of Section 25, now numbered 22, please raise their
hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (No member raised his hand.)

The results show 31 votes in favor;
Section 25 now designated as Section 22 is approved, as amended.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
are now going forward to Section 26, now renumbered as Section 23. We
ask that the chairman of the committee be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Tingson is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
member of our committee who had something to do with the original
formulation, Commissioner de Castro, will please be recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: This is my original
proposal under Proposed Resolution No. 231, and with the permission of
the acting chairman of the committee, I move that this Section 26, now
23, be deleted from the Declaration of Principles for the reasons I have
stated before. And these reasons are: First, that this was recommended
to me by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, not knowing that it was
taken from the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776 of the
original 13 States of the United States. But that is not the main reason
for that because other Commissioners, particularly Commissioner Azcuna,
has reformulated this section; but the second reason which is very
strong to my feeling is that this provision speaks of the right of the
people to change their government. Actually, it is a revolution that is
behind this formulation, and I am most afraid that a small minority may
use this to continue harassing or rise up in arms against the
government.

And so based on those two reasons, Mr.
Presiding Officer, I move that this provision under Section 23 of the
Declaration of Principles be deleted.

MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE: Before we act on the motion of
Commissioner Crispino de Castro, may I manifest my intention in
association with Commissioners Guingona, Maambong, Natividad and de los
Reyes upon the deletion of this section to propose an amendment by
substitution and, perhaps, we can, at the proper time, try to reconcile
the Azcuna amendment with ours.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may
I move for a suspension of a few minutes so that whatever proposal the
Honorable Ople has can be reconciled with the formulation of
Commissioner Azcuna?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
session is suspended.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, with
the indulgence of Commissioner de Castro, before the Chair rules on the
motion for suspension, in line with our previous procedure, we can now
act on the motion to delete; and later on, if there will be a new
formulation from Commissioner Ople or Commissioner Azcuna, then we can
act on it and we can ask for a suspension later on. But I think we can
now act on the motion to delete, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. TINGSON: We subscribe to that, Mr.
Presiding Officer. It is better to vote now on the motion to delete.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Are
we ready to vote or to suspend?

MR. TINGSON: Let us vote on the motion to
delete.

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): As
many as are in favor of the deletion of Section 26, now designated as
Section 23, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)

As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)

The results show 25 votes in favor, none
against and 4 abstentions; the motion to delete the whole section is
approved.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, to
give time to the proponents of Proposed Resolution No. 457,
Commissioners Ople, Maambong, de los Reyes, Jr. and Natividad, and the
proponents of the new formulation, including Commissioner Azcuna, we ask
for a suspension of the session.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
session is suspended.

It was 4:51 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:26 p.m., the session was
resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
session is resumed.

The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
are now on the original Section 26 which is now Section 23. For purposes
of record, the formulation on this section was originally proposed
under Proposed Resolution No. 457 of Commissioners Ople, de los Reyes,
Maambong and Natividad. There was also a formulation by Commissioner de
Castro which appears in the committee report but which has already been
deleted upon his own motion. We have a new formulation of Commissioners
Ople, Guingona, de los Reyes, Jr., Natividad and Maambong; and we also
have another formulation by the Honorable Adolfo Azcuna.

We would like to know from the committee,
if the proponents have already agreed on a common formulation from the
chairman of the committee, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Tingson is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may
we please recognize Commissioner Ople.

MR. OPLE: With the leave of the chairman
of the committee, may I request that Commissioner Azcuna present the
agreed formulation.

MR. AZCUNA: It is being distributed now,
Mr. Chairman.

May I read it, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Please proceed.

MR. AZCUNA: Section 23 will read: “WHEN
GOVERNMENT SYSTEMATICALLY VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS, IT
FORFEITS ITS AUTHORITY, AND THE PEOPLE MAY TAKE STEPS TO REDRESS THIS
FUNDAMENTAL WRONG AND ASSERT THEIR RIGHT TO A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT
THROUGH NON-VIOLENT MEANS.”

The authors are Commissioners Ople,
Guingona, de los Reyes, Jr., Natividad, Maambong and myself, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, may
we know from Commissioner Azcuna if all the Members of the Commission
have been furnished a copy of this new formulation so that they can look
at it and comment on it intelligently.

MR. AZCUNA: They have been furnished just
now, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
copies are being distributed, I think.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. MAAMBONG: May I ask for a suspension
of just one minute so that all the Commissioners will be given their
respective copies, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
session is suspended.

It was 5:29 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:30 p.m., the session was
resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
session is resumed.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: May I ask a few questions
to the proponent of this formulation?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Please proceed.

MR. DE CASTRO: When we say: “When the
government systematically,” who determines this systematical violation?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Will
the Gentleman tell us whom he wants to answer the question?

MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE: Who determines whether a
systematic violation of the Constitution and the laws has taken place? I
think it is the people themselves at that point that will determine
whether a systematic violation has, in fact, taken place, and this is
roughly equivalent to what in a previous formulation, until it was
deleted, Commissioner Crispino de Castro has defined as a long train of
usurpations and abuses.

So, it has to be a long train of
usurpations and abuses, as the same declaration of independence of the
United States says. People, in general, will gladly suffer their ills
under a government that has ceased to be acceptable to them, rather than
take a corrective action, because it is in the nature of people to want
peace and stability, until, however, this long train of abuses and
usurpations attains to a critical mass.

So that in the case of that country, it
decided to express its dissent in a vigorous form, beginning with the
Boston Tea Party, which raised the slogan of taxation without
representation. So, the perception that the situation had become
unbearable under an unjust government that had set aside the
Constitution from which it derives its authority will be a perception of
the people themselves, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DE CASTRO: Is it possible that a
small group like, for example, the Marcos loyalists, can say and
determine that there is a systematic violation of the Constitution and
the laws?

MR. OPLE: I do not think that that threat
arises at all, Mr. Presiding Officer. I think at the present time, for
example, although the interim Constitution has delivered vast powers to
the existing government, there is a general presumption on the part of
the people that the Constitution and the laws prevail, and, therefore,
there can be no ground for a tiny minority of the population with
certain political axes to grind to invoke this Section 23 in order to
mount a revolt against the government.

What is contemplated here is that a broad
consensus has developed that the systematic flouting of the
Constitution and the laws has already reached an unbearable threshold.

MR. DE CASTRO: Is it possible that a
group of labor unions, who may not be able to take what they like from
the government, may say that there is a systematic violation of the
Constitution and the laws?

MR. OPLE: No, that threat will not arise,
Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.

MR. OPLE: That will not arise.

MR. DE CASTRO: When the Gentleman says
the people may take steps, what are those steps that he has in mind?

MR. OPLE: That is a good question, Mr.
Presiding Officer. May I say that in the Constitution that was are
framing, we have already reserved to the people a number of powers. In
the Committee on the Legislative, for example, in the Article on the
Legislative, we reserve the power through the people as a last resort to
make laws or to amend them through the power of initiative, referendum
and recall.

In the Article on Constitutional
Amendments, we build into the Constitution the reserve power of the
people to amend or revise the Constitution, in accordance with the power
of initiative that had been vested in them, as distinguished from the
powers given to the legislature, either to summon a national
constitutional convention or by themselves to act as a constituent
assembly.

And, therefore, this will be the third
reserve power in effect, subsuming all the rest according to which the
people may take steps to redress a fundamental wrong when the
Constitution is systematically violated.

MR. DE CASTRO: Is it possible that in
taking these steps to correct a fundamental wrong this may include the
use of arms even if the Gentleman states here through nonviolent means? I
deleted my resolution, Section 26, because there was fear in me that
arms may be taken up by even a minority group or a big group against the
government and we are constitutionalizing it, although I would like to
reflect on the 20 years’ regime of the old administration and EDSA.

But then there is a possibility of revolt
and revolution under that resolution. And from here, I can smell or I
can see that the steps to right a fundamental wrong, although through
nonviolent means, in all possibility is unarmed revolution, is that not
the whole context of this?

MR. OPLE: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, the
Constitution cannot sanction the use of violence.

MR. DE CASTRO: Of course.

MR. OPLE: So, it speaks of nonviolent
means. It also includes a previous contribution of Commissioner Monsod
about this means being both nonviolent and moral. In other words, such
steps must be based on the spiritual values of a whole nation in order
to qualify for this standard of nonviolent means.

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Gentleman’s time is up.

MR. DE CASTRO: My three minutes is more
in the length of the answer, Mr. Presiding Officer. (Laughter)

MR. OPLE: I try to help abbreviate the
exchange, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DE CASTRO: I tried as much as
possible to decrease. That is why I tried to give the Gentleman more
time.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. MAAMBONG: May I ask that Commissioner
Rigos be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Rigos is recognized.

REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
would like to pursue the important questions raised by Commissioner de
Castro. Suppose the people have correctly determined that the government
systematically violates the Constitution. And in their desire to take
steps to redress that fundamental evil and assert their right to a
democratic government they resort to the use of violence simply because
the government has access to the military arm of the government, will
that step be unconstitutional under this formulation?

MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, let us
begin with the premise that the State under a constitution abhors
lawless violence. The State is the only one in possession of lawful
means of exerting violence, in accordance with law, therefore, in this
proposed amendment, if the ruler has already broken his covenant with
the people, has flouted the constitution and laws systematically and
continuously, he vitiates his own authority to govern that is derived
from a constitution and the law. And, therefore, even at that point, the
expenditure of armed force may no longer be said to enjoy the
protection of the constitution and the laws and if he applies
governmental force at that point, he is himself engaged in lawless
violence because he can no longer govern by authority of the
constitution and of the laws. What this provision makes very explicit is
that even when the people have reached that point of desperation over
severe tyrannical misrule, they may utilize only nonviolent and moral
means to secure that end of defending themselves and asserting their
right to a democratic government, Mr. Presiding Officer.

REV. RIGOS: That is a very comforting
answer except that we might worry a little bit about limiting the option
of the people to only nonviolent means when there might be some
circumstances when the use of force may be morally justified.

MR. OPLE: Then it will have to be
justified on the basis of this provision, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. GARCIA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

REV. RIGOS: Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Garcia is recognized.

MR. GARCIA: I think the present
formulation makes this provision superfluous, in fact, unnecessary. In
the third paragraph of the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, it states:

Whereas it is essential that man is not
to be compelled to have recourse as a last resort to rebellion against
tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the
rule of law.

I think it is rather clear that in cases
of long standing tyranny, no constitution can tell people what changes
have to be done or the means to go about them. I also believe that it is
the inherent right of the people to choose the viable means and ends
they desire as a people to correct very serious abuses of a
long-standing character.

Finally, I think nobody would debate the
fact that the preferred path is the peaceful way to change. But I think
we must also recognize that the people are sovereign and their choice of
means unhampered. That is why there are revolutions in the world. If a
revolution fails, then the people who conducted the revolution are
jailed. But when a revolution precisely goes about to overturn a long
standing tyranny, and the constitution sometimes goes with it, then
those people are able to govern under a new set of just laws. So, I
think the way the provision is formulated is, in fact, restrictive. I do
not see how this would promote and provide that kind of reason for
change.

MR. OPLE: Is Commissioner Garcia in favor
of striking out the word “means,” and instead say: “AND ASSERT THE
RIGHT TO A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT THROUGH NON-VIOLENT MEANS”? Does the
Commissioner consider that a restriction? Will this section rise to the
sufficiency that Commissioner Garcia contemplates if we do away with
this constraint of “through non-violent means”?

MR. GARCIA: In fact I am wondering
whether it is wise to have it at all, because it is clear for many of us
that the preferred path is peaceful. I, myself, am committed to
nonviolence. We realize in the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights that one of the major reasons why rights must be respected
and protected is that people do not have to resort to rebellion as a
last recourse. But the point is, still that is a reserved right of the
people in case of long-standing tyranny which I think is also stated in
paragraph 32 of Populorum Progresio. Even in the Catholic
doctrine, the fact is that the people in these extreme situations have
that right. I believe it is an inherent right of any people. But to
state it in such a fashion, I am not sure if that would be sufficient.

MR. OPLE: If it is an inherent right,
then I agree. I also believe it is an unspoken major premise of all
written democratic constitutions. Why then should we hesitate to make
that right explicit and articulate in the Declaration of Principles of
our Constitution? Especially on the basis of contemporary experience,
this is an eminently practicable and workable approach to the ultimate
defense of the democratic rights of the people under menace from what
they perceive as an unbearable tyranny.

MR. GARCIA: Because if we wish to
explicitate the inherent right, then I would suggest that we approximate
the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
precisely states that as a last resort, people can have the right to
choose the viable means land objectives that they so desire to put an
end to long standing tyranny.

MR. OPLE: But is not that exactly what
this proposes? I think there is a sense in which that request is already
met by this paragraph as reformulated. This statement, which is a
powerful statement of the ultimate defense of the people whose rights to
a democratic government are under imminent peril, is also a strong
warning to future tyrants that the systematic and habitual disregard of
the constitution and the laws will bring him in confrontation with the
legal capacity of the people to redress this wrong through nonviolent
means. It may also help remind the people that they have this final
reserve power other than the power to make laws on their own, through
initiative, referendum and recall. Other than the power of initiative to
amend and revise a constitution, they have this final fallback position
in defense of their rights to a democratic government in the
Declaration of Principles.

MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. GARCIA: Mr. Presiding Officer, in
fact, if I have to answer this point, the response is that any kind of
formulation in this regard would be imperfect. It would fall far short
of any kind of inherent right of the people. But I have here with me an
alternative formulation which, I think, Commissioner Azcuna had earlier
drafted wherein it states the following: “That the State with its
institutions belongs to the people. Whenever a government fails to serve
the people, they may exercise their inalienable right to alter, reform
or abolish it.” By keeping silent on the means, I think we are far more
faithful to the idea.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Garcia’s time is up.

MR. GARCIA: Thank you.

MR. OPLE: May I just point out that this
formulation just read by Commissioner Garcia was actually amalgamated
into this final consensus draft to which Commissioners Azcuna and de los
Reyes contributed a major part. I am afraid that we have to insist that
the qualification through nonviolent means will have to remain in the
text.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: In view of the many
interpellators who would like to say something and ask for
clarification, may we establish the following order of speakers:
Commissioners Sarmiento, Padilla, Davide, Bennagen and Jamir.

I now request that Commissioner Sarmiento
be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

While I agree that the people have the
inherent right to change a government, I personally believe that we
should have a clear provision on this point in the Constitution.

However, I have reservations with respect
to the present formulation especially with the use of the words
“through nonviolent means.” May I briefly explain. The use of these
words preclude the use of another mode of changing an existing despotic
government. We all know that we have two modes of changing government.
One, done violently; and the other, done nonviolently.

Our history is replete with our people’s
violent struggle against tyranny and despotism. We have the Philippine
Revolution of 1896, we have our war against America, and that against
Japan. These were not nonviolent means; these were violent means. But to
use the words of Suarez, a scholastic philosopher, it was a revolution
done in self-defense against an offensive violence committed against
them.

The exclusion of the words “through
nonviolent means” will not be peculiar in our Constitution. We have the
Constitution of Turkey; we have the Constitution of El Salvador. The
Constitution of Turkey is clear and it states,

And having achieved the revolution of
May 27, 1960 by exercising her right to resist a political power which
has lost its legality through behavior and actions against the law
contrary to the constitution.

I underscore the words “right to resist a
political power.”

Then, we have the Constitution of El
Salvador which is very clear and I quote:

The right of the people to insurrection
is recognized. The exercise of this right shall in no case result in
the abrogation of laws and shall be limited, in its effect, to the
removal and so far as necessary of officials of the executive branch who
shall be replaced in the manner established by the Constitution.

We have our very own philosopher,
Apolinario Mabini, who advocated the use of force when necessary. He
said that a ruler should be deposed when he usurps the power of the
government and undermines the people’s welfare. He argued that the
revolution staged by the Filipinos against the American regime was just,
because the Americans were tyrants and usurpers. And this was a violent
revolution. He said that a people who resisted a tyrant did what was in
consonance with both divine and human laws. And his position is
supported by scholastics like St. Thomas Aquinas, John of Salisbury and
Francis Suarez.

St. Thomas said that a tyrannical
government is not just because it is directed not to the common good but
to the private good of the ruler. Consequently, there is no sedition in
disturbing a government of this kind unless indeed the tyrant’s rule be
disturbed so inordinately that the subject suffered greater harm from
the consequent disturbance than from the tyranny of government.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
time of the Gentleman has expired.

MR. SARMIENTO: My decision is that though
I agree with that formulation, I would suggest that we delete the words
“through nonviolent means” so as to include other modes of changing a
government.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer,
before we recognize the next interpellator, we would just like to
indicate that we are in the period of amendments. Since we are in the
period of amendments, the proponent would expect amendments to his
proposal or statements against the proposal. And if we are going to have
interpellators who are going to speak against the proposal, we have a
rule for that. We only have two, four or two against. And so I would
suggest very strongly to the Members of the Commission that if they have
any proposals in the form of amendment, they propose it to the
proponent and if they would like to speak against or in favor, we are
limited to two speakers each.

I ask that the Chair recognize the
Vice-President.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Padilla is recognized.

MR. PADILLA: Will the proponent yield to a
few questions?

MR. OPLE: Very gladly, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

MR. PADILLA: Is this proposed section
animated by the political miracle of February 1986?

MR. OPLE: Yes, although there are many
sources of inspiration for this proposal. I think the dominant one is
what happened in February in our own contemporary experience.

MR. PADILLA: What others say as an
extraordinary political miracle. When this says “violation of the
Constitution and the law,” then says “nonviolent means,” is not the
judicial remedy to go to the Supreme Court for vindication of the right
or a redress of the wrong?

MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, this
presupposes a situation where even the recourse of the courts may no
longer be available as part of the systematic violation of the
constitution and the law.

MR. PADILLA: This mentions redress. Does
not the petition for redress of grievances start with the right to
peaceful assembly?

MR. OPLE: In that narrower context of the
redress of grievances, Mr. Presiding Officer, the Vice-President is
correct. I believe that “redress” here is used in its generic meaning.

MR. PADILLA: Now with regard to the right
to a democratic government, is not the popular will expressed in
periodic elections through nonviolent means?

MR. OPLE: Yes, in normal times. I suppose
this is correct, Mr. Presiding Officer, although I have pointed out a
situation contemplated by this amendment wherein the people or most of
them had already reached a point of alienation from the existing
government to the point of desperation and, therefore, the ability to
conduct the necessary clean and free elections may have already been
greatly impaired by the existing situation.

MR. PADILLA: When the Gentleman mentions
the moment or the point of desperation, then it becomes the inherent
right of the sovereign people to change the government that does not
serve their needs and that right may even include an armed public
uprising or what is commonly known as rebellion.

MR. OPLE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, the
Vice-President is correct. But since this is an innovative undertaking
to make explicit and articulate in the written Constitution the right of
the people for ultimate self-defense, then we think that it should
sanction only nonviolent means of securing that end; that is to say,
securing their rights to a democratic government. I suppose that nothing
in this paragraph prohibits the people from taking well-proportioned
measures; that is to say, proportional to the threat and the tyranny.
But any kind of employment of force will be in excess of the
constitutional authority.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Padilla’s time is up.

MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. PADILLA: May I just say one sentence
only.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Let
us finish with Vice-President Padilla.

MR. PADILLA: In the U.S. Declaration of
Independence, the right of the sovereign people to change their
government is recognized. But that is not found in the U.S.
Constitution, and so I believe that there is no need for this section in
our Constitution.

Thank you.

MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.

MR. BENGZON: I was going to raise a point
of order, and request the Presiding Officer to enforce Section 26 of
our Rules. We are now in the period of amendments; we are no longer in
the period of interpellations and under our Rules, the proponent has
five minutes. Under the suppletory rules, Rules of the Batasan, there
will be two speakers in favor of the amendment and two speakers against.
I think we have already heard Commissioners Garcia and de Castro who
spoke against by way of interpellation.

MR. OPLE: Correction, please, Mr.
Presiding Officer. Commissioner de Castro did not speak against.

MR. BENGZON: So, it seems to me, Mr.
Presiding Officer, that only two speakers in favor are entitled to speak
at this moment.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Yes,
Commissioner Davide.

MR. DAVIDE: May I just comment on that
point of order?

Even in the period of amendments, the
proponent of the amendment may be interpellated. What the Rules
stipulate is, it would limit the number of people or Commissioners who
can speak against a particular amendment. But there is no rule limiting
the number of Commissioners who can interpellate a proponent of a
measure.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): What
does Commissioner Bengzon say?

MR. BENGZON: Insofar as that is
concerned, precisely, we have to go through the period of sponsorship
and debate and interpellations before we go into the period of
amendments. So, all interpellations should be during this period of
interpellations and debates. During the period of amendments, we have
the amendments and the proponents will certainly articulate on their
amendments together with two others who will speak in his favor and two
others against. And that is the rule which is very clear and it is
subject to a five-minute rule for each speaker.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: We are now in the period of
amendments for the entire committee report. And so, any Member may stand
to propose amendments and the other Members are entitled to
interpellate the proponent of a particular amendment. To that there is
no limitation. But as to those who will speak against a particular
amendment, not merely interpellate, it may be limited to two, according
to the Rules.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
just want to clarify the situation. I have to agree with Commissioner
Davide when he said that if a Member proposes an amendment, he has five
minutes to explain that amendment. That is the five-minute rule. And I
would like to support that with this interpretation in the
Jefferson’s Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives. It
says:

General debate and amendment under the
five-minute rule — . . . any member shall be allowed five minutes to
explain any amendment he may offer, after which the Member who shall
first obtain the floor shall be allowed to speak five minutes in
opposition to it, and there shall be no further debate thereon, but the
same privilege of debate shall be allowed in favor of and against any
amendment that may be offered to an amendment. . .

That is the rule, Mr. Presiding Officer.
But the problem is, there are interpellators who stand up, they are not
proposing amendments. They are only speaking for or against. And in that
context, the honorable chairman of the Steering Committee is correct.
And Commissioner Davide is also correct, that if the Member will just
stand up and speak for or against without proposing any amendment, then
we are limited to two on one side and two on the other. So I am
proposing, Mr. Presiding Officer, as I have proposed earlier, that if
anybody should stand up, please propose an amendment so that he will be
entitled to five minutes. If he does not propose an amendment, then he
may have exceeded the number of Members who are speaking for or against.

That is just a clarification, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

MR. BENGZON: All I am asking, Mr.
Presiding Officer, is that we enforce the Rules with respect to
amendments. And we are in the period of amendments; Commissioner Ople
has presented an amendment, then let us have the debates — two for and
two against; then we vote.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer,
since we have clarified the situation to all the Members, may we now
call on Commissioner Davide to present his amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: I will speak against instead
of propose an amendment. I am against the proposal for the following
reasons: First, it is unnecessary, superfluous; second, it is not only
restrictive but very, very restrictive. It is superfluous because this
is already covered precisely by Section 1 of the Article on the
Declaration of Principles which states:

The Philippines is a democratic and
republic State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them.

That is already the meat of the authority
of the people to change government, if that particular government no
longer carries the consent of the people.

Secondly, the provision here states:

When government systematically violates
the Constitution and the laws, it forfeits its authority and the people
may take steps to redress this fundamental wrong.

What is the fundamental wrong referred
to? It is not the government; it is the systematic violation of the
constitution and the laws. Necessarily, we do not have to replace the
government, but merely correct or make certain redresses against the
violation or the laws. We have the judiciary to take care of that.

It is very, very restrictive because it
would now limit the right of the people to change that particular
government through nonviolent means and, secondly, only when the
violation is systematic. In other words, if the violation is not
systematic, the people cannot even change the government even by
nonviolent means.

And so, we prevent the people, precisely,
to change that particular government, despite the fact that all
government authority emanates from them. That would be the effect of
this proposal. It is very, very restrictive. It would, in effect,
prevent the people from exercising its authority to seek redress even
for a nonsystematic violation of the constitution and the laws. Thus, an
approval of this would be dangerous.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
Acting Floor Leader has a situation in his hands. There are already four
Members who spoke against, in violation of the Rules. It was not the
fault of the Chair; it was the fault of the Acting Floor Leader. He
could not anticipate whether the Member who stood up was going to
propose amendments or he was going to speak in favor or against. But
that is the situation, Mr. Presiding Officer. Four has spoken against.
The Acting Floor Leader can no longer allow anybody to speak against
because it is already in excess of two.

May we now recognize Commissioner
Guingona as the first speaker who will speak in favor of the amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Guingona is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Yes,
Commissioner Davide.

MR. DAVIDE: I think I will have to raise a
point of order. This is now the turno en contra because we
were allowed to speak against. In other words, it presupposes that those
who were in favor had foreclosed the right to sponsor. If we have to be
very very technical about it, this is now the turno en contra,
this is not the turno for the proposal. I was recognized to speak
en contra, so anyone to be recognized after me will have to be also
for the turno en contra.

MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): What
does the Acting Floor Leader say?

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, this
is now a little bit nit-picking on the Rules. The instruction of our
President has always been to liberalize the Rules as much as possible,
if it can at all be done, so I would ask from Commissioner Davide to
please withdraw his objection so that we can proceed further. At any
rate, I recommend that two will be made to speak in favor since four has
already spoken against. I am asking Commissioner Davide to please, in
the spirit of liberality, withdraw his motion for reconsideration.

MR. OPLE: Point of inquiry, Mr. Presiding
Officer, before Commissioner Davide takes the floor. May I find out if
an act of great consideration to colleagues on the opposite side of an
argument in accordance with which the sponsors kept silent throughout
the exchanges, be considered a forfeiture of the right of the sponsors
to speak on behalf of their proposal after an act of self-abnegation? Is
this what they deserve, to lose their right to speak on behalf of their
proposal?

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Just a
minute. To straighten out the records, what does Commissioner Davide
say about the request of the Acting Floor Leader?

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I was
just of the impression that the Commission wanted really to be very,
very strict about the Rules. There was even an unfortunate termination
of the period of interpellations, so I also wanted to apply the Rules
strictly insofar as the turno en contra is concerned, which is where we
are now. However, I am willing to withdraw the objection I raised in
interest of a further discussion on a very transcendental issue.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Thank
you; the objection has been withdrawn.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
would like to indicate my thanks to my colleague from Cebu, and he has
the assurance of my vote when he runs for the Senate.

MR. GUINGONA: May I just make one
observation before I make my remarks, Mr. Presiding Officer?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Guingona may proceed.

MR. GUINGONA: As indicated by the Acting
Floor Leader himself that be did not know that the persons who spoke
were to speak en contra, we ourselves were not in a position to
anticipate that they were to speak en contra.

I would like to say, Mr. Presiding
Officer, that I am in favor of this proposed amendment in its entirety
which means that I would favor the inclusion of the words “through
nonviolent means.” As stated by the principal proponent, this would not
preclude the right of the people, as a last resort, to take up arms.
According to the honorable Commissioners, who expressed their
reservations, this is an inherent right which means that it is a right
which can be exercised with or without constitutional approval. But we
are putting here “through nonviolent means” because we want to emphasize
that given the choice, the people should opt for nonviolent means. In
other words, the armed revolts come as a final resort. I agree that
there is this inherent right to take up arms but also contend that such a
sense should not be attached to a constitutional provision because
violent revolution connotes an act committed beyond the context or
framework of law. And as former Chief Justice Concepcion said, the
Constitution is a document that enshrines the rule of law. Therefore,
any allusion to the right of violence or armed rebellion, even not
expressly, would be inconsistent with the concept of the constitution
being a document that enshrines the rule of law. The people may have the
right to take up arms but such rights should not be extended
recognition especially in the constitution.

Thus, a person may have the right to kill
in self-defense, but it would not be proper to include it in
enumerating his rights. It might only encourage people to kill in
alleged self-defense, in the same manner that people power might turn
out to be mob rule when the people are encouraged to take up arms
against the lawfully instituted government on the pretext that the
conditions enumerated in this proposed section or this proposed
amendment allegedly exist.

And may I close, Mr. Presiding Officer,
by quoting Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States. When
speaking of a constitution, he says: “The language of a constitution is
the language of restraint, not coercion.” And if I may paraphrase Chief
Justice Marshall, I say that the language of our constitution should be a
language of restraint not a language of violence.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer,
since nobody has registered to speak in favor, may we now recognize the
Members who will propose amendments to the proposal of Commissioners
Ople and others. And in the spirit of the liberality of the Rules, I ask
that the Chair allow the Members, who will propose amendments, to
address some preliminary questions to the proponents of the amendment
before they actually propose their own amendments.

I ask that Commissioner Bennagen be
recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.

MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Gentleman has three minutes.

MR. BENNAGEN: I would like to ask the
proponent a few questions first.

As formulated, is the contemplation here
merely a political revolution in terms of changing a regime and not in
terms of changing social structures since it is very clear that the
people may take steps to redress only when a government systematically
violates the constitution and the laws?

MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
amendment here contemplates a situation where a virtual breakdown of the
constitution and the laws has already taken place and, therefore, even
access to the courts and access to the people through normal elections
have already been blocked. In such a situation a peaceful political
revolution falls within the purview of this constitutional authority.

MR. BENNAGEN: With the emphasis on
nonviolent means, is the contemplation here to constitutionalize a
philosophy of pacifism to the exclusion of ether options when the
conditions so require?

MR. OPLE: Pacifism is really passive
noninvolvement and refuge in, let us say, evasion of a crisis that has
arisen. This is not a commitment to pacifism, Mr. Presiding Officer,
because nonviolent means can be a very vigorous and extremely aggressive
activity on the part of the people. Where it stops, however, is in
granting explicit constitutional authority to the use of violence.

MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer. I have no amendment to make.

MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner
Jamir be recognized.

Commissioner Jamir has no amendment to
present. I ask that Commissioner Abubakar be recognized for a possible
amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.

MR. ABUBAKAR: We have listened to the
brilliant speeches and remarks of every Commissioner for or against. But
I believe, while we are drafting the Constitution for the people on
this particular provision, the people must give the final answer.

Will it not be objectionable on the part
of the proponents if we just eliminate in this section the phrase,
“through non-violent means” and put a period (.) after “government”?

MR. OPLE: I am under a mandate from
several Commissioners who collaborated in this draft, to preserve the
phrase “through nonviolent means.” Until I am released from these
instructions, I am afraid, Mr. Presiding Officer, that I cannot oblige
Commissioner Abubakar, I mean his request for the deletion of “through
non-violent means.”

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, may
we know from Commissioner Abubakar if he is insisting on his amendment
to delete the words “through nonviolent means,” so that we can put it to
a vote?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): What
does Commissioner Abubakar say?

MR. ABUBAKAR: In order to avoid a
prolonged debate and let the future government decide the course of
action they will take with respect to this particular problem, will the
proponent, as well as those who are against it, agree to eliminate the
whole provision and let the people decide what means they would like to
take?

MR. OPLE: Commissioner Abubakar is
reiterating some previous remarks already made by Commissioner Davide
and a few others, to which I hope I will be allowed to make a brief
reply towards the end of this period of amendments, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

MR. ABUBAKAR: Does he not believe in the
maxim, “the voice of the people is the voice of God”?

MR. OPLE: Although this phrase has lately
been strongly belabored, it does not diminish its relevance, Mr.
Presiding Officer. I do subscribe to that.

MR. ABUBAKAR: If the Gentleman
subscribes, then the elimination of this whole provision from the
constitution will be in order at any time an appropriate situation
arises. Let the people state and decide the course of action.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Abubakar’s time is up.

MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, just to
acknowledge the point made by Commissioner Abubakar and earlier by
Commissioner Davide, the general principle of sovereignty residing in
the people is established in Section 1. But in this Section 23, we are
putting it to its ultimate test. And that is the reason why a number of
Commissioners confess a certain alarm, because we are putting the
theory, the principle of popular sovereignty to a test in an extreme
situation. Then the final reserve of the people’s sovereignty is in the
people themselves and when confronted with this test it will be assorted
to redress a fundamental wrong and assert the right to a democratic
government.

MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner
Rigos be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Rigos is recognized.

REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer, my
questions have been answered.

MR. MAAMBONG: In that case, Mr. Presiding
Officer, just to formalize it; this amendment to Section 23 has been
presented originally by Commissioner Azcuna. May we ask the committee if
this amendment being sponsored by Commissioner Ople is accepted by the
committee?

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
committee members are divided on this issue, that is why we want to
throw it to the body.

MR. MAAMBONG: With the indulgence of the
chairman of the committee, I will now read the proposed amendment so
that we can put it to a vote.

Section 23, originally Section 26, as
proposed, reads as follows: “WHEN GOVERNMENT SYSTEMATICALLY VIOLATES THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS, IT FORFEITS ITS AUTHORITY, AND THE PEOPLE
MAY TAKE STEPS TO REDRESS THIS FUNDAMENTAL WRONG AND ASSERT THE RIGHT TO
A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT THROUGH NONVIOLENT MEANS.”

I ask that this now be put to a vote, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer,
before we vote, may I have one statement?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): What
is the pleasure of Commissioner de Castro?

MR. DE CASTRO: I join Commissioner Davide
in deleting this section because this can be carried through initiative
and recall which we have in the Constitution.

Exactly one sentence, thank you, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): We
will proceed with the voting.

As many as are in favor, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

The results show 11 votes in favor and 22
against; the amendment is lost.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: With the indulgence of
Commissioner Garcia who would have wanted very much that we take up
Section 24, now Section 21, on the grant of asylum to foreigners, we
will instead take up Section 27, now Section 23, on the separation of
the Church and State.

I ask that the chairman of the committee
be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Tingson is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: I feel we can really
abbreviate our session and adjourn reasonably at an early time tonight
because in the last section of our original committee report — the
separation of Church and State — according to my record here, only
Commissioner Bacani has a proposed amendment. But he told me personally
that he will not even insist on his amendment. So I ask that we
recognize Commissioner Bacani.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.

BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer,
after talking with some people, perhaps, I will insist on at least one
sentence of the amendment. I have here the amendment on a sheet of paper
and it says: “WHILE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE SHALL BE
MAINTAINED, THE STATE SEEKS THE COLLABORATION OF THE CHURCHES AND
RELIGIOUS BODIES TO PROMOTE THE TOTAL WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENS AND
ACKNOWLEDGES THE RIGHT OF CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS BODIES TO COMMENT ON
GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND ACTUATIONS.”

The reasons for my amendment are the
following: First, I think it is necessary that the Church and State
should maintain independence of each other, otherwise, there will be
chaos in the nation or it will be to the detriment of the citizens.
Second, it is necessary that the Church and State should collaborate
towards the achievement of the total well-being of the citizens of our
country.

I was studying the constitutions of
several countries and I looked up 135 constitutions. And of the 135
constitutions, I noticed that only eight of them had explicit provisions
on the separation of Church and State. Two of them have something like
that in substance. Of the eight, seven are communist countries. Hence, I
would like to ask that we balance that statement of the separation of
Church and State with a corresponding truth and, that is, the State
seeks or welcomes the collaboration of the churches and religious bodies
to promote the total well-being of its citizens.

Those are the reasons for the amendment,
Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: I would like to propose an
amendment to the amendment. Instead of starting the section with the
word “while,” it should read as follows: “THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
STATE SHALL BE MAINTAINED. THE STATE, HOWEVER, WELCOMES THE HELP AND
COLLABORATION OF CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS BODIES TO PROMOTE THE WELL-BEING
OF ITS CITIZENS.” And delete the rest.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. ABUBAKAR: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Before we act on the
proposed amendment to the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo, for
purposes of orderly procedure, we would like to ask Commissioner Bacani
first to really concretize the proposed amendment because the Members of
the Commission did not get it very well. Is the amendment after the
word “inviolable,” Mr. Presiding Officer?

BISHOP BACANI: Yes.

MR. MAAMBONG: So that the committee can
reply, how will the amendment now read? Then, we will proceed to
Commissioner Rodrigo’s amendment.

BISHOP BACANI: Yes. It is an amendment by
substitution and this is what I mean when I said I would like to retain
at least one sentence of that amendment, the one proposed by
Commissioner Rodrigo, so there will be two sentences: “THE SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE SHALL BE MAINTAINED. THE STATE, HOWEVER, WELCOMES THE
HELP AND COLLABORATION OF CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS BODIES TO PROMOTE THE
WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENS.”

MR. ABUBAKAR: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. MAAMBONG: Can we have it again, Mr.
Presiding Officer?

MR. RODRIGO: It reads: “THE SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE SHALL BE MAINTAINED. THE STATE, HOWEVER, WELCOMES THE
HELP AND COLLABORATION OF CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS BODIES TO PROMOTE THE
WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENS.”

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, may
we ask the response of the committee to the proposed amendment?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): What
does the committee say?

MR. AZCUNA: The committee insists on its
present wording, Mr. Presiding Officer, and regrets that we cannot
accept any further amendments thereto.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
would like to know from the proponents, Commissioners Bacani and
Rodrigo, if they are insisting on their amendments?

BISHOP BACANI: Yes, at least up to the
amendment that is proposed by Commissioner Rodrigo. We will notice that
in the eight constitutions that contain the separation of Church and
State, nowhere is it put as starkly as that — that the separation of
Church and State is inviolable.

MR. MAAMBONG: May we ask that
Commissioner Bernas be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Bernas is recognized.

FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
would like to speak against the amendment.

We already have two provisions touching
on the separation of Church and State in the Constitution; one, the
provision on nonestablishment in the Bill of Rights; and second, this
provision proposed by the committee which is a copy of what was approved
under the 1973 Constitution. Both these existing provisions have a long
history of jurisprudence and it is one provision in the Constitution
which, in fact, is very rich in jurisprudence. And one of the things
about the relation between Church and State is that it is a dynamic and
changing relationship. The relationship between the Church and State
throughout history has changed due to the development of the State’s and
the Church’s self-understanding of itself. It is a very delicate
relationship, and it is always a question of trying to balance the value
which “separation” stands for and the value which “religious liberty”
stands for.

The Constitution mentions religion twice —
the freedom of religion and the nonestablishment of religion. They are
not exactly the same concepts. They are distinct rights and sometimes
they are in opposition to each other. There are times when insistence on
separation of Church and State may trench on freedom of religion and
the delicate task of balancing this is best done in the context of
concrete cases.

I am afraid that this amendment, when it
says that it welcomes the collaboration of churches and religious bodies
to promote the total well-being of its citizens, is an invitation to
entanglement of religion with the State. We do not need such invitation.
We would much rather see the cooperation between the Church and the
State grow dynamically without encouragement from anybody because, as I
said, there is always the danger that the Church will try to impose
itself on the State or else there may also be the danger that the State
will try to impose itself on the Church. So rather than open the gate
towards inviting greater entanglement between State and religion, I
would advocate that we leave the constitutional provision as it is
because all that is stated here can be done under existing provisions.
But there may be moments when what is called “collaboration” is, in
fact, interference.; So let us just be silent about this and leave the
development of the relation between Church and State to a case in law,
where positions are argued in the light of actual circumstances. So, for
that reason, because of the fact that this is a very delicate matter,
the less there is said about the relationship between the Church and
State, the safer it would be for our nation.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Considering that
Commissioner Bernas is not proposing any amendment, the floor takes it
that that was an argument against the proposed amendment. I ask that
Commissioner Tingson of the committee be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Tingson is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, if
only to enrich the record of our deliberation on this particular
article, may I state to begin with that our very own forefathers, so to
speak, in Article V, Title 3 of Religion of the Malolos Constitution,
opted to state the following:

The State recognizes the freedom and
equality of religious worship as well as the separation of the Church
and the State.

I suppose Apolinario Mabini had something
to do with this because he was one of the formulators of the Malolos
Constitution. May I continue to state, Mr. Presiding Officer, that since
that time, centuries ago, when all the civilized world had found a very
pressing and compelling reason to enshrine in its laws the principle of
the separation of Church and State, we have improved a great deal in
our understanding of that principle. So much so that even in the face of
a wide-spread awakening in our churches to the socioeconomic and
political realities, a phenomenon only of recent years here and abroad,
we have not witnessed the resurgence of that discredited tendency for
the Church or the State to take over the prerogatives of the other,
excepting only in countries where these realities are much too harsh so
as to engender a revolutionary atmosphere.

By and large, the democracies of the free
world have kept close to the time-honored principle of the separation
of Church and State. Nonetheless, we find it to be essential to
reiterate this principle in the basic law because its absence could very
well invite dire possibilities in the future.

Someone once said that “man is
precariously civilized.” We are all witnesses to the kinship of Abel and
Cain in each individual, and we might sometimes wonder how thin the ice
of civilized life is.

As late as 1960, the former President of
the United States, John F. Kennedy, once again had to remind Americans
that the principle of the separation of Church and State existed and
remains inviolable. The number of years that we have spent observing it,
therefore, is no guarantee of its inviolability.

Mr. Presiding Officer, religion is a
pervasive and overwhelming fact of our national existence. While we do
not entertain the notion of ever regulating the observance of religion,
let us make sure that religion, encompassing as it does large segments
of our society, does not unduly influence the formulation and
implementation of state policies.

It is a historical fallacy to attribute
to the Churches an intrinsic desire to override government in its
functions. Rather, the historical action had been one of evolution, from
the former state of fusion to one of present-day separation. I should
like to believe that old societies had found it necessary, even
beneficial, to fuse the functions of governing them with the observances
and rituals as these were carried out by religious leaders. Abraham,
Moses, and many of the latter prophets were secular leaders of the
Israelites as much as they were the religious leaders of their people.

But then, Mr. Presiding Officer, it was
conceived that an individual might be free in his worship, or even in
the absence of it. The imperatives of conquest brought within national
boundaries a divergence of religious views. It was likewise reasoned
that a government might allow the free exercise of whatever religious
beliefs on condition that the government retains the basic attributes to
its existence and effectiveness. But the winds of freedom, more than
anything else, the spirit of democracy as we believe it to be today,
have won for religion and government a new pair of eyes with which to
perceive each other with understanding and tolerance.

But how will these two distinguishable
but permanent institutions live alongside each other? Shall one regulate
the other? Shall the other subserve the former? Obviously, our own
great minds of the past have found a solution to this. That is the
reason why the separation of Church and State has long been established
and enjoys a respectable place in our heritage.

Finally, Mr. Presiding Officer, the
formula was and has always been to put space between Church and
government — how well do I remember the debates we had on the floor of
the Constitutional Convention of 1971 at the Fiesta Pavilion of Manila
Hotel — a space and a respectful distance between the two. For religion,
whatever it might be, to flourish in our society, has observed this
principle. Because the space provided for itself in the sphere of
spiritual influence is wide and broad enough that it need not aspire to
control the political sphere as well as in order to fulfill itself.

Our overriding concern, therefore, can
only be this: The Church or the State can destroy itself by interfering
with the business of the other. We need a government to referee our
conflicting aspirations, to guide us and to give us direction. We need,
Mr. Presiding Officer, religion also for many reasons, but above all, to
carry us above the mundane realities where the government cannot. It
seems to me, as expressed by Commissioner Bernas, that the time-honored
phrase “the separation of Church and State” does not certainly mean
enmity between the State and the Church. Rather it means truly a
friendly cooperation on the morality side and, although they are
collaborating to that effect, it is best, however, that the principle
separating them is best recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Tingson’s time is up.

MR. TINGSON: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. ABUBAKAR: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer,
there are two Gentlemen who are standing up: Commissioners Abubakar and
Rigos. May I ask if they are speaking for or against so that we can have
an orderly procedure.

I ask that Commissioner Rigos be
recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Rigos is recognized.

REV. RIGOS: I understand, Mr. Presiding
Officer, that Commissioners Bacani and Rodrigo are not against the
separation of Church and State.

BISHOP BACANI: That is true, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

REV. RIGOS: So that is not debatable.
What they propose is to add another sentence to the one suggested by the
committee. So my suggestion is that we first vote on this sentence
recommended by the committee, and then later on vote on their amendment.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
would like to agree, but the problem is that even the first sentence has
been amended because the original formulation is “The separation of
Church and State shall be inviolable,” while the proposal is “The
separation of Church and State shall be MAINTAINED.”

I now ask for the recognition of
Commissioner Aquino who will speak against.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Before the Commissioner speaks, the Chair desires that we comply as much
as possible with the Rules to shorten our proceedings, and, therefore,
if anyone desires to speak, please register with the Acting Floor
Leader.

Commissioner Aquino is recognized.

MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
speak against the proposal to introduce amendments to the committee
report on the separation of Church and State.

As articulated by Commissioner Bernas,
the religion clauses in all of the constitutions that carry it are
constantly in tension, such that in the interpretation of this
provision, and whenever there is any problem that arises from the
religion clauses, almost everytime there is a requirement of the best
possible efforts to accommodate according to the settled usage in law
and in jurisprudence. And if only to assuage the fears of some of the
Commissioners, freedom of religion does not mean a license to disregard
the command of the sovereign State. Neither does the de-establishment
clause mean total abstention of the State from the regular mode of
support or even donation to some of the Church institutions.

In fact, the jurisprudence would state,
in the United States and in some Western countries, that they have
staked the existence of the State on the faith that the separation of
Church and State is good both for the State and for the Church.
Jurisprudence is very consistent in being zealously watchful against the
fusion of secular establishments with sectarian institutions. As the
metaphor goes, “there is a wall of separation” between the Church and
the State, not just a fine line that will be overstepped whenever
necessary. And it appears to be justified because as we all know, a good
fence actually creates good neighbors.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer,
nobody has registered to speak against the amendment; however,
Commissioner Abubakar wants to make it of record that he is against the
amendment.

Mr. Presiding Officer, before we put the
matter to a vote, may we ask Commissioner Bacani to say a few words.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.

BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, two
points have been made here. First, the necessity to uphold the
“separation of the Church and the State” which is affirmed by the
amendment. That is not contested. Let me make that as clear as possible.

The second point raised by Commissioner
Bernas is this: that we should maintain a balance. And, precisely, the
purpose of this amendment is not to negate the separation of Church and
State, but to redress an imbalance. What is that imbalance?

We are church people — I am a churchman.
During the martial law regime, we had to be critical of the regime, and
it was not an uncommon experience that the separation of Church and
State was invoked. It is sometimes invoked against the prophetic
ministry of the Church.

In fact, President Marcos, in the Iglesia
ni Cristo compound, accused churchmen of violating the separation of
Church and State when they were only exercising their prophetic
function. And if we leave it that way, “the separation of Church and
State shall be inviolable,” it may not be a balanced statement.

Commissioner Bernas, himself, said in a
letter to Delegate Greg Tingson of the 1971 Constitutional Convention,
and I quote: “according to Wilfred Parson, the phrase does not have any
meaning at all. And because of this, it can be made to suit everything.
Everyone wants it to suit his purpose.”

So, the intention is not to deny nor to
eliminate the constitutional provision. In fact, it says: “The
separation of church and state shall be MAINTAINED.” What we are asking
for only is that the church will welcome this cooperational
collaboration which is the explanation to me of Commissioner Rodrigo.
That is why I agreed to the deletion of the word “inviolable,” as this
includes the right of these churches to exercise prophetic criticism,
which is another form of cooperation, for the well-being of the people.

So I think that should be made clear. The
two points are saved. And let me ask this as a final point. Will
Commissioner Nolledo tell us the background of the 1973 provision alone?
It seems it was Marcos who wanted it in after a disgusto with
the Catholic hierarchy.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

REV. RIGOS: Point of inquiry, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Yes,
please proceed.

REV. RIGOS: Are we talking about the
“separation of Church and State” or the changing of the word
“inviolable” to “MAINTAIN’? I think that is the proposed amendment.

BISHOP BACANI: Yes, that is the one. I am
not hard and fast on that. I can yield on that “inviolable” thing.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
would like to clarify the situation. The proposed amendment is actually
an amendment by substitution. The original formulation reads: “The
separation of the Church and State shall be inviolable.” The present
proposed amendment changed the word “inviolable” to “MAINTAIN” and added
another sentence. We are now prepared to put this to a vote, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Bernas is recognized.

FR. BERNAS: My name was mentioned. What I
am opposing is not the separation of Church and State. It is true, I
maintain, that is a legal statement. The sentence “The separation of
Church and State is inviolable,” is almost a useless statement; but at
the same time it is a harmless statement. Hence, I am willing to
tolerate it there, because, in the end, if we look at the jurisprudence
on the Church and State, arguments are based not on the statement of
separation of Church and State but on the nonestablishment clause in
Section 8 of the Bill of Rights. What I am against is the explicit
invitation for cooperation because it is opening up entanglement between
the state and religion. The moment we allow this entanglement, this can
be an opening for fanatics who want to reform a State to try to dictate
their own will on the State.

This is my whole point and I do not want
to give this opening. There are concrete problems. We had concrete
problems during the time of President Marcos and there were attempts to
use the doctrine of the separation of Church and State against the
church. Marcos was wrong. The fact that he tried to do it does not deny
the validity of the separation of Church and State. What I just to avoid
is this invitation to entanglement.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: We are through with
speeches against and in favor; we are through with the amendments; the
proponent has already made the closing statement. I do not know why we
cannot vote at this point in time, but if there are any further
clarifications from the body, we will leave it to the discretion of the
Chair to recognize.

BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
say a few words in support of the Bacani proposal on condition that the
word “collaboration” be changed to “COOPERATION.”

I think Commissioner Bacani is willing to
accept that amendment because “collaboration” will really lead to
entanglement contemplated by Commissioner Bernas. I would like to
confirm the statement of Commissioner Bacani that this provision was
inserted through some sort of intervention on the part of Mr. Marcos,
who was alarmed by the opposition against his regime by certain sectors
of religion, basically from the Roman Catholic Church and certain
protestant ministers. I gathered this from statements of people who were
close to the former President. I believe that the Bacani proposal, on
condition that “collaboration” is changed to “COOPERATION,” will make
the provision on Church and State separation attuned to realities.
According to Commissioner Bernas in his position paper submitted to the
1971 Constitutional Convention, he observed that the prohibition of an
establishment of religion should not, therefore, be based on complete
separation of Church and State which is maybe a modern slogan, but
misleading.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Does the proponent accept
the amendment of Commissioner Nolledo to change the word “collaboration”
to “COOPERATION”?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: I am the proponent of that
amendment to the amendment. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, I accept.
Therefore, we change “collaboration” to “COOPERATION.” In that case, the
words “help and collaboration” shall be deleted because “help” is just
the same as the word “cooperation.” So that it will now read: “The
separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. THE STATE, HOWEVER,
WELCOMES COOPERATION OF CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS BODIES TO PROMOTE THE
WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENS.”

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Office, may
we know the reaction of the committee, considering that there has been a
substantial amendment to the proposed amendment.

MS. AQUINO: The committee regrets that we
cannot accept the amendment and we will insist on our formulation; that
is, “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”

MR. MAAMBONG: Since the committee is not
acceptable to the amendment, may I suggests Mr. Presiding Officer, that
we vote on the two sentences separately.

REV. RIGOS: That was my suggestion a
while ago Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): We
shall now vote separately on the two sentences.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Yes,
Commissioner Davide.

MR. DAVIDE: I do not think that the first
sentence should be taken as part of the proposed Bacani amendment,
because that is the original wording of the committee report. So may I
propose that what is to be voted upon will only be the second sentence
because the first sentence may still be subject to amendments, it being
an original committee wording.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
agree with Commissioner Davide. We should not vote at the moment on the
first sentence because that is the original formulation of the
committee. We will take it to mean that the amendment is only by
addition of the second sentence.

We will now put this to a vote, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

MR. TINGSON: Can we make it clear,
please, Mr. Presiding Officer?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Will
the Acting Floor Leader read the amendment?

MR. MAAMBONG: It will read as follows:
“THE STATE, HOWEVER, WELCOMES THE COOPERATION OF THE CHURCHES AND
RELIGIOUS BODIES TO PROMOTE THE WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENS.”

I ask that this be put to a vote, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

MR. TINGSON: But the first sentence “the
separation of Church and State shall be inviolable,” is not being voted
upon now, Mr. Presiding Officer?

MR. MAAMBONG: It is not being voted upon.
That is part of the committee report.

MR. ABUBAKAR: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. MAAMBONG: Will the Gentleman please
use the microphone so that everybody can hear.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Will
the Gentleman please use the microphone so that his statements can be
properly recorded.

MR. ABUBAKAR: May I ask the Gentleman who
proposed the amendment to include in his enumeration the cause of the
five million Muslims, our Filipino brothers in the South, who pray in
mosques, in addition to churches and religious groups. “MOSQUE” should
be included.

BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer,
that is why “religious bodies” is used, not only “churches” but
“religious bodies,” precisely to include the Muslims and other religious
groups.

MR. ABUBAKAR: No, because the Muslims
worship in a separate institutional structure just as the Christians
worship in the church. If we close with the “church,” which is the
Christian place of worship, we will denigrate the Muslims by not
including them in the religious bodies. Why not say the “church, MOSQUE,
and other religious bodies”?

BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
understand in the formulation of the Constitution, the church here does
not mean the place of worship but the church as an institution or as a
group of people. And so “religious bodies” should be the corresponding
term and not the “MOSQUE”.

MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. ABUBAKAR: No, if we say “religious
bodies,” the Muslim would not understand us. This Constitution is for
the Christians, the nonbelievers, the Protestants the Muslims, and all
Filipinos regardless of faith. If we, therefore, mention the church as a
place of worship, why can we not include the mosque?

MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.

MR. BENGZON: I am raising a point of
order. There is a motion on the table which we must act upon. And the
motion is to vote on the amendment of Commissioner Bacani. I ask the
Chair to please call for a vote.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Let
us proceed with the voting.

MR. MAAMBONG: Commissioner Abubakar has
already indicated that he is against the proposed amendment. May I ask
that his statement be noted so that it will be considered in the process
of voting, and now I ask for a vote.

MR. ABUBAKAR: I am not against the
amendment, I am only against the noninclusion of what I was proposing.

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): We
are now in the process of voting. We shall proceed. The Chair will not
entertain any Commissioner anymore.

As many as are in favor, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (Two Members raised their hand.)

The results show 6 votes in favor, 26
against and 2 abstentions; the amendment is lost.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
now ask for a vote on the original formulation of Section 27, now
renumbered as Section 23, which reads: “The separation of Church and
State shall be inviolable”

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): As
many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)

The results show 36 votes in favor and
none against; Section 27, now Section 23, is approved.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
now ask that the chairman of the committee be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas):
Commissioner Tingson is recognized.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer,
although we have finally finished the original draft of the committee,
there are still five amendments or additional paragraphs. I suggest that
we adjourn for the day.

MR. MAAMBONG: In view of the
manifestation of the chairman of the committee, I move that the session
be adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas): Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
session is adjourned until nine-thirty in the morning.

It was 7:07 p.m.

---

^* Appeared after
the roll call.

 

APPENDICES

ON THE AMERICAN
MILITARY BASES
By Commissioner Teodulo C. Natividad

Kung iisipin, nasabi ng lahat ng nauna sa
akin ang matuwid at saligan ng sang-ayon at maging ng tutol sa
pamamalagi pa rito ng mga himpilang hukbo ng Amerikano. Gayunman,
magiging malaking pagkukulang ko sa tungkulin ko bilang Komisyonado ng
mabunying kapulungangang ito kung hindi ko ilalagay ang iaambag, ang
butil ng binhing inihahasik natin sa kapakanan ng mga sumusunod pang
saling-lahing Pilipino.

Kakambal pa ng pagpasok ni Commodore
Dewey sa Look ng Maynila noong 1898 ang pagsibol ng usapan tungkol sa
mga base militar ng Amerika sa Pilipinas. Ibigin man natin o hindi, ang
Pilipinas, kung baga sa isang dalaga, ay isang tunay na mutya ng
kariktan na maraming puso ang nagnanais makasungkit ng matamis na “oo.”
Nasa sangang-daan tayo ng Karagatan ng Tsina, ng Pasipiko at ng Selebes.
Nasa isang pook ang ating bayan na lubhang mahalaga sa larangang
panghukbo. Kaya naman, sa mula’t mula pa, maraming dayuhan ang nabibihag
sa atin.

Mula na nga noong 1898 hanggang sa mga
sandaling ito, umaalitubtob na lagi ang usapan tungkol sa mga base
militar na ito. At noong 1933, ito ang laman ng Hare-Hawes-Cutting Law
na tinutulan ng sambayanang Pilipino dahil sa tuntuning nagbibigay sa
Pangulo ng Amerika ng malawak na karapatan na pamalagiin dito ang mga
base militar. Pinalitan ito ng Tydings-McDuffie Law na higit na mainam
ang tuntuning nakalagay. Anupa’t, mula noon, apatnapung ulit nang
nagkaroon ng susog at mga pagbabago sa kasunduan ng Pilipinas at Amerika
tungkol sa mga baseng ito.

Ang maniningning na kaisipan ng ating mga
dakilang ninuno ay iniambag sa pagsusuri, paglilimi at pag-aaral sa
kasunduang ito. At hindi naman masasabi ng sino man na ang ating mga
ninuno at magulang na ito ay kapos sa pag-ibig sa bayan o
napakasangkapan upang ipagkanulo ang bayan. Nag-aalinlangan akong
sabihing tayo ang nagpasiya na hindi na kailangan ang mga base militar
na ito at paalisin na ang mga Kano sa Pilipinas. Huwag nang
isaalang-alang ang 42,265 kataong kababayan nating empleado ng mga
baseng ito, bukod pa sa 900 kontratista at 500,000 iba pang nakikinabang
sa mga base, ang isipin na lamang natin, lalo na sa panahong itong
nakalugso ang kabuhayang bansa, ay ang isang bilyong dolyar na katumbas
ng dalawampung bilyong piso na pakinabang ng Pilipinas sa mga baseng
ito. ‘Pung taon na ang nagdaan mula ng sumulpot ang suliraning ito,
maraming utak ng lalong matatalino nating ninuno at magulang ang piniga
upang ilagay sa ayos ang suliraning ito. Kung taon ang binilang nila,
ano naman at sa isang iglap, tayong aapatnapu’t pito na sa loob ng
dalawa o sabihin pa nating tatlong linggo, maghihiwa-hiwalay na at
magkakanya-kanyang landas, ang makapagwiwikang kayang-kaya nating
tapusin at lutasin ito agad. Hindi kaya sa pagmamadali natin maiwan at
makaligtaan ang maraming bagay na bukas-makalawa ay magbubunga ng lalo
pang suson-susong suliranin at sakit ng ulo ng bayan?

Sabi nga ni Ambassador Pelaez, limang
taon ang kailangan upang maging tunay na handa sa pag-uusap ang mga
taong may tunay na kakayahan at kaalaman sa suliraning ito. Huwag tayong
magmadali sapagkat wika nga ng kasabihang Pilipino, ang “lumakad ng
matulin, kung matinik ay malalim.”

Kaya mga kasama, buong puso kong
itinataguyod ang mungkahi ng kapatid na Komisyonado Francisco “Soc”
Rodrigo na ipaubaya sa pamahalaan ang paglikha ng lupong bubuin ng mga
sadyang may kasanayan at kakayahanang tauhan ng Ministri ng Tanggulang
Bansa, Ministri ng Suliraning Panlabas, Ministri ng Pananalapi at
Ministri ng Katarungan upang pag-aralan, matamang limiin, suriin at
paraanin sa lalong masinsing bistay at lambat mula ngayon hanggang 1991
at nang maging tunay tayong handa sa pag-uusap at kahit sa
pakikipagbunong braso man sa mga Amerikano tungkol sa mga himpilang
hukbong ito.

At matapos itong pag-usapan, matapos na
magkasundo ang dalawang panig, ang pinakamahalaga sa atin ay ipaubaya sa
buong sambayanang Pilipino ang pangwakas na pasiya o pagpapatibay sa
kasunduang ito na ang kasamang nakataya ay ang buhay, kapalaran at
kinabukasan ng kasalukuyan at mga susunod pang saling-lahing Pilipino.

THE MILITARY BASES
ISSUE
By Commissioner Serafin V.C. Guingona

There are those who would wish to
dismantle the U.S. military bases in the Philippines upon ratification
of the proposed Constitution. Any attempt by the Philippines to
unilaterally abrogate the said Agreement would be violative of pacta
sent servanda, a fundamental principle of international law which holds
that obligations of international agreements should be discharged in
good faith. If we abrogate unilaterally, we would project for our
country an image of international delinquency. Those favoring immediate
dismantling cite the principle of rebus sic stantibus which says that a
treaty ceases to be binding when an essential change in circumstances in
which it was concluded has occurred. But in order that the said
principle would be applicable, it would require a substantial change in
circumstances as to seriously jeopardize the existence of the State, a
requirement which obviously does not exist.

Those who seek the non-renewal of the
Military Bases Agreement contend that the Philippines should not renew
the treaty because (1) the agreement is violative of our country’s
sovereignty; (2) the military bases serve as magnets for nuclear attack
by Russia; (3) that the terms of the Agreement are unfavorable to us
compared to the terms agreed upon by the U.S. with other countries where
they also have military bases. Those who say that the existence of the
military bases in the Philippines violates our country’s sovereignty
would conveniently ignore the fact that the Philippines entered into the
Agreement in 1947 pursuant to Joint Resolution No. 4 of the Philippine
Congress authorizing the President of the Philippines to negotiate with
the President of the U.S. regarding the establishment of U.S. bases in
the Philippines. It is a valid agreement because (1) the parties had
capacity to contract; (2) the agents were duly empowered; (3) there was
freedom of consent; and (4) the object was in conformity with
international law. The Magsaysay-Nixon statement on July 3, 1956
contained in the first part thereof an assertion that the U.S. had
always recognized Philippine sovereignty over the bases. The 1976
re-negotiation was preceded by a U.S. announcement of its “clear
recognition of Philippine sovereignty in its use of the Philippine
military bases.” The 1979 Agreement reiterated the previous Joint
Statements that the U.S. military bases in the Philippines were
Philippine military bases over which Philippine sovereignty extends. The
fact that the U.S. uses and occupies the military bases with our
consent does not at all deprive us of sovereignty in much the same way
that an owner does not lose ownership over his property notwithstanding
the fact that the same is used and occupied by the lessee.

It is contended that the bases serve as
magnets for Russian nuclear attack. The fact is that these bases
actually serve as deterrents to attack. But granting for the sake of
argument that they are magnets, these bases are evidently weak magnets
because they have been here for forty years. During all that time there
had not been even a hint of a Russian attack. Besides, as former
Congressman Marcial Pimentel said, “In the event of a nuclear war, it is
not necessary for a direct hit on a particular country to annihilate
all her people. The radioactive fallout will be carried by the winds to
all corners of the world under the ‘nuclear-winter theory’. . . If the
scientists are right, why worry about the bases as targets of nuclear
attack? We will die ahead of the Thailanders and Malaysians by just a
few weeks. That is not much of an advantage they have over us.”

It is to be admitted that some of the
terms of the Agreements, as amended, are not favorable to the
Philippines if compared with U.S. agreements with other countries like
Spain, Great Britain, Italy, Malaysia, Turkey and Greece. But let us not
forget that this Agreement was entered into in 1947 shortly after the
end of the last World War and before the other agreements concerning
bases were concluded. We, in fact, had benefited from the actions of the
U.S. about the time the Agreement was entered into — the U.S.
liberation of our country from the Japanese as wed as the extensive
economic aid the U.S. had extended to us for the rehabilitation of our
devastated country. It might be noted that this Agreement had undergone
several reviews or revisions from 1956 to 1983, which resulted in the
institution of about forty amendments to the original provisions. The
Philippine flag flies over these military bases under Philippine
sovereignty which now have a Philippine base commander. The Philippine
laws have been made effective inside the bases — laws affecting taxes,
labor, immigration, customs, natural resources and, subject to agreed
exceptions, criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. Let
us also not ignore the fact that while much of what we are getting from
the United States re the military bases are outright grants, a lot of
the amounts which Spain and Greece are getting are long-term
concessionary loans. Besides, some of the onerous terms are of our own
making. For example, Kissinger offered $1 billion for the use of the
military bases shortly before the expiration of the term of President
Ford after Ford lost in the presidential election. The $1 billion was
supposed to be divided on a 50-50 basis, 50% for military assistance and
50% for economic assistance. Marcos accepted the amount but only for
military assistance without any economic aid component. Mr. Kissinger
refused and the matter was dropped.

Aside from the rentals paid for the use
of our military bases, there are other economic benefits that we derive —
benefits enjoyed by the many families residing in the areas where the
bases are located, benefits from savings that the government would
otherwise have to spend without U.S. assistance. In 1985, the R.P.
defense budget was $437 million. Only Brunei spent less for defense.
Even tiny Singapore spends more than we do. If military assistance were
to be cut off, much of our spending would go to the payment of foreign
loans and to the budget of the military and little would be left for
government services in the areas of education, health and sanitation,
housing, public works and many others. There is, of course, one added
benefit as to salaries of Filipino workers in the bases amounting to
$82,885,04 a year, “the second largest payroll in the Philippines” after
the Philippine government. The impact of a sudden withdrawal of
American forces from the Philippines, which could be misinterpreted to
mean that we are leaning towards the communist countries, could well
bring about disastrous results to our country’s heroic efforts towards
economic recovery. Besides, let us not forget that we have a serious
insurgency problem on our hands and we will need all the friendly
assistance and support of our allies, including the United States.

RESOLUTION NO. 21

RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE HONORABLE
JOSE B. LAUREL, JR. ON HIS BEING CONFERRED THE ORDER OF KALANTIAO.

WHEREAS, the Honorable Jose B. Laurel,
Jr. was conferred by Her Excellency, President Corazon C. Aquino, the
Order of Kalantiao (First Class) on the occasion of his seventy-fourth
birth anniversary last August 27, 1986;

WHEREAS, the prestigious award was
conferred on the Honorable Laurel, Jr., in recognition of his long years
of dedicated service to his country and people; of his high sense of
nationalism, patriotism, loyalty and integrity; and of his enviable
record as Minority Floor Leader and as Speaker for three times of the
House of Representatives of the Congress of the Philippines, as Minority
Floor Leader of the Batasang Pambansa, as President of the 1969 Asian
Parliamentarians, as Chairman of the Philippine Panel that negotiated
the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with Japan, and as
representative of the Government to various international conferences,
all of which are testimonials to the great and sterling stature and
character of the man;

WHEREAS, as a Member of the
Constitutional Commission of 1986, Commissioner Laurel, Jr. continues to
demonstrate the same qualities of leadership and public service which
has endeared him to the Filipino people;

WHEREAS, since the award was conferred on
Commissioner Laurel, Jr. at a time when the Constitutional Commission
of 1986 is still at work and in the process of formulating a new
Philippine Constitution, the giving of the award has brought singular
honor to the Commission as well: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Constitutional
Commission of 1986 in session assembled, To congratulate the
Honorable Jose B. Laurel, Jr. on his being conferred the Order of
Kalantiao (First Class) by Her Excellency, President Corazon C. Aquino,
on the occasion of his seventy-fourth birth anniversary last August 27,
1986.

Resolved, further, to furnish
the Honorable Laurel Jr., a copy of this resolution.

(SGD.) CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA President

This resolution was adopted unanimously
by the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on September 3, 1986.

(SGD.) FLERIDA RUTH P. ROMERO Secretary-General

THE NEW
INFORMATION ORDER AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON THE PLANNING AND USE OF
COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY

By Commissioner
Florangel Rosario Braid

Communication technology refers to all
techniques and means employed in the collection, storage, processing,
dissemination and use of information. This is the traditional definition
to which I would wish to add the important function of mediating or
catalyzing interactive communication between people or groups.

A common belief which I would like to
rectify is the tendency to regard the new information order as the new
communication technology order which are two different concepts. The
present emphasis on pushing the transfer of communication technology in
our developing societies such as computerization or countryside
dispersal of telephone infrastructure may give the impression that this
is what the new information order is all about.

What is the new international information
order? Essentially, the order calls for a restructuring of the present
flow of information as well as existing policies and practices which
have worked primarily for the advantage of the developed countries and
the urban centers of developing societies. The important elements are
the following: (1) an international exchange of information must support
states in developing their cultural system in an autonomous way and
with complete sovereign control of resources; (2) individual countries
design and implement their national policies on the basis of available
resources and to meet the basic socioeconomic needs of the population;
(3) public participation and decentralization of communication resources
would work towards achievement of goals of endigenous (or local)
development; and (4) self-reliance leading to collective self-reliance
would strengthen horizontal links and bottom-up communication and would
reduce dependency on the urban centers or industrialized countries.

The NIIO or NWICO, like the new economic
order, aims to work towards equitable structures such as mechanisms
which promote two-way exchange of information between the developed and
developing countries and between rural and urban areas of the country.
It supports the distribution of information so that local communities,
particularly ethnic minorities, have equal access and participation in
information as well as other material resources and services. In short,
it supports people’s right to communication and access to vital
information. It further supports the strengthening of mass-based and
citizen’s groups through community media which can provide these groups
leverage in decision making. It recommends upgrading of manpower
capability especially in development perspectives particularly in the
training of media personnel in order that they become more judicious in
selecting strategies that promote cultural values and national goals of
authentic development.

The NIIO, while acknowledging the
positive contributions of new communication technology, however,
provides caution in the indiscriminate transfer of technology especially
if they contribute to the erosion of cultural values and in widening
disparities between the urban and rural communities. The control of
transnational corporations of communication resources and the
implication of such in the furtherance of national goals are underscored
in the NIIO and the MacBride documents. What is missing in these
Reports, however, are specific guidelines for Third World countries in
the planning of communication technology. As Nordenstreng, a media
critic says, the MacBride Report does not contain a coherent picture of
the world — neither of the world of today or of tomorrow. The vision of
society is implicit and it is therefore up to us to expand the vision
according to our criteria for a preferred future. Schiller criticizes
the Report for having failed to confront a powerful transnational
business system which is using every means and technique to do what the
Report and the NIIO warn against.

I do not wish to belabor the importance
of communication as a basic national resource. It is, as many say, as
important a resource as energy and materials. It may even be more
important than the two for in the final analysis, materials or energy
could only be fully utilized if we have an effective communication
system. “Information is power” states Deutsch in Nerves of
Government and his argument is that government is essentially
steermanship and steering is decisively a matter of communication. Those
who know the power of information and who equate it with power would
then tend to hoard information in order to centralize power. On the
other hand, we also know that in the long run, nonzero-sum strategies
which include redistribution of information or broader participation and
sharing are in the end the more viable strategies for everyone than the
traditional zero-sum or win-lose strategy which has encouraged
information concentration in the hands of a powerful few.

There is likewise concern about the
possible consequences of unlimited growth in communication technology.
McLuhan sounded a more optimistic note in his concept of the global
village where he foresees the movement towards an international
community bound by common interests. But unless the planners are aware
of both the positive and the negative consequences of the information
society, we in the Third World might find our culture a few years from
now a homogenized version of a larger world culture, the latter being
primarily an import from the western technology producing countries.

ENGLISH
TRANSLATION OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1986 DELIBERATIONS

MR. PADILLA: Yes, Madam President, the
Castilian or the Spanish language.

I do not believe that during the Spanish
regime, Spain did not want to teach the Filipinos the Spanish language.
As it is, our national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, wrote in Spanish not only
his two immortal novels, the Noli Me Tangere and the El
Filibusterismo, but also his poems and verses like “My Last
Farewell and “My retirement,” which the whole world admits are superior
over those written by the Spaniards and Mexicans themselves. And not
only Dr. Rizal, all his companions, Marcelo H. del Pilar, Emilio Jacinto
and others, in their aim to improve the Philippine situation under the
colonization of Spain, studied this Spanish language. After these great
men, there are many Filipinos who dominated the Spanish language, like
Don Claro M. Recto. We have to realize that Spanish is the second idiom
only to English in the world because we have not only Central America
but also South America and Latin America, which speak Spanish with the
exception of Brazil which speaks Portuguese.

It is not true that the Filipinos could
not learn the Spanish language. My parents used to speak Spanish; I
spoke Spanish in the family, but unfortunately, due to the American
influence and other foreign influences, many of my children no longer
speak Spanish. But not to speak Spanish is not a virtute. It seems to me
that it is unfortunate for the Philippine nation. And it is for that
reason that the late immortal poet and hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, always
mentioned in his El Filibusterismo that what the Filipino nation needed
was more education. Education and idioms, not only Filipino or Tagalog
but also Spanish and now English, are very important for the progress of
the Philippines. It is unfortunate, I repeat, that the present
generation and the future generation cannot speak Spanish. But I believe
we have to cultivate this language. Sometimes we talk of foreign
language, like German, French or Italian, which has no comparison with
the Spanish language.

We have had Spain for more than 300 or
400 years, and it is a disadvantage for not having the desire or the
interest to conserve this idiom of our Mother Spain. How can we feel the
sentiments of our national hero, especially in his poems, if we have to
go into translation instead of reading the original? My father always
requested me to memorize the poems of Dr. Jose Rizal, and many times he
imposed upon me to recite these very beautiful verses, better than the
ones written by the Spaniards and the Mexicans, before him.

Thank you very much.

MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.

MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, the
Commissioner has to read the books of historians and also the chapter in
the El Filibusterismo, entitled: “The Difficulties of a
Teacher’ to understand the truism that the Spaniards really did not want
to teach us the Spanish language.

I would like to ask Commissioner Padilla.
How many of us here understood the Gentleman when he was speaking in
Spanish?

MR. PADILLA: As I said, it is unfortunate
for this generation that they cannot, at least, understand the Spanish
language. I admit that Spain did not want to educate the Filipino people
because the theory was that it was easier to colonize and continue the
Spanish government if the Filipino masses are not well-educated. I
concur that they did not want to elevate the intellectual educational
sphere of the Filipino people, but not necessarily not to teach the
Filipinos the Spanish language. There is a great difference. I concur
that they did not want to educate the Filipinos because it was easier to
dominate a nation that is ignorant than educated. But that does not
mean that we should not try to conserve and, much less, not learn the
Spanish language.

MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I ask a
question of the honorable Commissioner Padilla?

MR. PADILLA: With pleasure, Madam
President.

MR. GUINGONA: I just want to know the
desire of the Commissioner. Is it the Commissioner’s desire that we
should include in our Constitution the provision that this Constitution
should be promulgated in Spanish, or will the Commissioner be satisfied
if we could simply say that our Constitution should be translated into
our dialects and also into Spanish?

MR. PADILLA: No, I concur with the
recommendation of Commissioner Tingson that our Constitution be also
translated into Spanish.

MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.

PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 539

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE
NEWS CONSTITUTION THE PROVISIONS ON THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.

Be it resolved as it is hereby
resolved, by the Constitutional Commission in session assembled to
incorporate in the new Constitutions the following provisions:

ARTICLE ____
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

E. The Commission on Human
Rights

SECTION 1. There shall be an independent
Commission on Human Rights composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners,
who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines, at least
thirty-five years of age and members of the liar for at least ten years.

The Chairman and the Commissioners shall
be appointed by the President for a term of seven years without
reappointment. Of the Commissioners first appointed, one shall hold
office for seven years, another for five years, and the third for three
years. Appointment to any vacancy shall only be for the unexpired
portion of the term of the predecessor.

SECTION 2. The Commission on Human Rights
shall have the following powers and functions:

(1) Investigate all forms of human rights
violations committed by public officers, civilian and military
authorities, or by private parties;

(2) Issue subpoena and subpoena duces
tecum to compel the attendance of any party to its proceedings or
the production of materials and documents, with the power to cite for
contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court
promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines;

(3) Provide appropriate legal measures
for the protection of human rights of all persons within the
Philippines, including provisions for legal aid services for indigent
persons whose human rights have been violated or need protection; and

(4) Establish a continuing program of
education and information to propagate the primacy of human rights.

(5) Perform such other duties and
functions as may be fixed by law.

COMMUNICATION OF
COMMISSIONER SERAFIN V.C. GUINGONA

Hon. Cecilia Muñoz Palma
President
1986 Constitutional Commission

Dear Madam President:

This is to confirm the information I
brought to Your Honor’s attention that in our publication — Journal of
the Constitutional Commission — my name appears with the indication that
I was absent from August 6-9 without the additional remark that I was
sick, which remark appears in the subsequent sessions from August 11-16.
In our other publication — Record of the Constitutional Commission — I
am reported as absent from August 6-16 without any indication that I was
sick.

The fact is I had been confined at the
Makati Medical Center where I was rushed due to acute abdominal pains
while attending the Commission’s session on August 5 and I remained in
the said hospital until noon of August 18.

May I request that this manifestation be
included as an Appendix in the still unprinted/unpublished volume of our
Journal (Volume Three) and of our Record (Volume Four) to avoid any
wrong speculation that I had absented myself from the Commission’s
sessions without good reason.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) SERAFIN V.C.
GUINGONA

Approved:

(SGD.) CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA